Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the last issue of Canadian Theatre Review on prairie theatre (Spring 1991), a great deal has changed on the Alberta theatre scene, but some things have not. The conservative political agenda remains as entrenched as the Rockies, and playmakers continue to create diverse imaginative landscapes peopled by a wide range of local and extra-territorial characters. The essays in this issue speak to the long history and the wealth of creativity in the province: Diane Bessai excavates the beginnings of Edmonton theatre in the University of Alberta's drama program; Scott Sharplin demonstrates the seminal role of amateur theatre at Edmonton's Walterdale Theatre; Allan Boss highlights the importance of CBC radio drama for the early careers of Alberta playwrights such as Sharon Pollock. By the 1980s, graduates from the University of Alberta theatre program were collectively developing new plays and theatres dedicated to the production of Canadian works: Theatre Network, Workshop West and Alberta Theatre Projects have nurtured playwrights who have probed the political, social, and environmental history of the province, and tackled contentious issues of race and gender, the ethical conundrums of war, and the social responsibilities of art. As David Mann pointed out in an interview in CTR 66, being part of a Western theatre community in the 1980s “that has developed its own cadre of actors, directors, and playwrights who speak about us and the people we know and the people we grew up with and about our culture and society” (qtd. in Houston and Philpott 54) was for him the most important kind of theatre activity at that time. In this issue, playwright Conni Massing, who worked closely with director Stephen Heatley at Theatre Network in the 1980s, underscores the importance of a supportive “home” for theatre artists. But Alberta theatre is not bound by its communal roots or defined by its “region.” It is not limited to the “expression of historical and geographical particularity” (Filewod): its subjects may be local or global — and often both. As John Murrell suggests, in an interview with Moira Day, the inspiration may come from a particular place, but its scope may be international.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.291 | 0.162 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".