Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue devoted to an examination ofthe int ersection oftheatre and disability culture, I have chosen to revive a Canadian Theatre Reviewtradition and give myself carte blanche with the Views ’ Reviews section, in order to offer overdue coverage ofsome ofthe noteworthy texts I have received lately. I begin with this idea from Lukacs because of his unique vision of the role of the avant-garde artist in society and because his way of identifying the avantgarde so often reminds me of the process of reviewing and/or editing the reviews for this publication. For Lukacs, the avant-garde was profoundly realist; that is, for an artist to be considered avant-garde, she or he had to be not only prophetic but accurately prophetic, anticipatory even. An avant-garde work, then, can never be identified as such until enough time has passed to allow for the work of critics, reviewers and editors in the process of verifying the work’s propositions. Given the passage of time in this process, an artist can only ever “have beenreviews-article avant-garde. I think th is accurately describes the reviewing in this section ofthe Canadian Theatre Review,especially with regard to written material. Publishers kindly send me some truly remarkable texts, and I do my best to see that they get into the hands of capable reviewers, but this process takes time, and one is reminded of continually arriving late to the discovery of an important new vision.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.318 | 0.426 |
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".