MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380880891 · doi:10.3138/ctr.124.006

Suicide Girls Live!

2005· article· en· W4380880891 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shelley Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformative utteranceContext (archaeology)LesbianQueerBurlesqueMandateFeminismArtPerformance artSociologyVisual artsArt historyGender studiesMedia studiesHistoryAestheticsPolitical scienceArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 13 to 15 January 2005, the SuicideGirls Live! burlesque show appeared as part of the High Performance Rodeo in Calgary, Alberta. Straddling the boundaries of feminism, popular culture and, indeed, definitions of performance art and theatre, the SuicideGirls performance highlights the diversity of the festival phenomenon in Canada. Performing any kind of work at a festival invites a contextual analysis. As Jill Dolan writes in Presence and Desire, in reference to heterosexual and lesbian spaces, “[C]ontexts make the terms of the performative exchange very different, even if the images used or roles played are the same” (127). In a Canadian context, festivals range from the populist Fringes to the high art Festival de Théâtre des Amériques to the venerable Stratford and Shaw to the brand new Magnetic North. Women’s work has a place at all of these to varying degrees, seldom in a major or central capacity. On the other hand, works by women in these contexts take on the attributes of the festival and are read as enacting the mandate of the curator, whoever she or he may be.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.007

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207