Bibliographic record
Abstract
To borrow a term from David van Belle’s contribution to this issue, Canadian theatre has been pervasively “festivalized” in recent decades. To most readers, Robertson Davies’s 1980 reminiscence would now sound quaint. We are offered festivals almost all year long and almost everywhere. True, not everyone would agree that this is an improvement on the remoteness (both geographic and cultural) of Davies’s enchantments. When Patrice Pavis came to revise his 1980 Dictionnaire du théâtre in 1996, he added an entry on “Festival,” in which he draws a rather damning distinction between “such traditional events” as the Athenian festivals of the fifth-century BCE and the proliferating festivals of today, lamenting that the ancient “solemnity of celebration” is too often “rendered meaningless by the proliferation and trivialization of modern festivals” (148). This issue of CTR presents a group of articles that collectively argue for a more flexible model of what a festival can be than that of Pavis, highlighting the varying functions of festivals in twenty-first-century theatre culture. While most aim emphatically at celebration, their “solemnity” may not be so obvious, if only because festivals tend to thrive on what is new and unexpected. A more important issue is one clearly articulated by van Belle in relation to festivals of performance work, but which applies to all: “[W]hile we are gathering information on what festivals are, we need to ask the question of what it is that festivals, as performance entities in and of themselves, do.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.337 | 0.198 |
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".