MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874556 · doi:10.3138/ctr.134.004

Uses of Disorder and the Citizen Spectator

2008· article· en· W4380874556 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alex Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionSociologyValue (mathematics)AestheticsLimitingMedia studiesImpulse (physics)Visual artsArtEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Very broadly speaking, since the 1950s, in the west, there have been two contrasting visions of the theatre experience. These visions can be thought of as complementary or competitive, depending on how you view the associated value systems and the way public and private resources are divvied up between them. Theatre that adopts the well-ordered, institutional model takes place in specialized buildings and carefully separates the outside world from auditorium and stage. Such theatre is generally supported by the middle and upper classes and reflects the values of its patrons. The other model, which is often considered (by theorists and practitioners) to reflect an anti-institutional impulse, seeks a looser definition of theatre and constructs models that allow for a greater degree of spectator involvement. The first kind of theatre, in addition to limiting disruptive (or instructive) variables by isolating the audience from the outside world, seeks to dislocate the spectator from the particularities of local civic dynamics and situate her in a generic social “subset” that is like similar social subsets in other theatres and other cities. It creates a kind of “gated community” for its privileged patrons and virtually prohibits surprising encounters with difference. The material presented onstage may speak of difference, but audience demographics reveal sameness of social class.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.023
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207