MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874518 · doi:10.3138/ctr.139.fm

Inter•Cultural•Performance

2009· article· en· W4380874518 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ric Knowles

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsHistoryThe HolocaustGender studiesMedia studiesSociologyVisual artsPolitical scienceArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Canadian Theatre Review published its special issue on Chinese Canadian Theatre in 2002, Jean Yoon opened her leadoff article with “Gee, you know, I’m not Chinese. I’m Korean.” Situating herself within “an Asian Canadian arts scene – one that is fluid, vibrant, and inclusive” (emphasis in original), Yoon criticized CTR for focusing so narrowly on a single, atomized community in Canada, potentially ghettoizing it and fragmenting fragile intercultural solidarities within a no longer first-generation Asian Canadian community that neither remembered nor cared about ancient histories of tension between the homelands. She called for a look, first, at “the bigger picture” (5). Since then, one play has been produced in Toronto that focuses on the potentially divisive topic of the Nanking Holocaust of the Chinese by the Japanese in 1937 (Marjorie Chan’s a nanking winter), and another (Diana Tso’s Red Snow) is in development. Seven years later, neither seems controversial or threatens solidarities within an Asian Canadian theatrical community that is now, perhaps not incidentally, well represented through the efforts of fu-GEN Asian Canadian Theatre Company, founded in 2002 – the year Yoon’s article appeared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1140.029

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207