The “Inter” of Intercultural Exchange: A Review of New Canadian Plays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns in recent intercultural theatre revolve around breaking down the distance between ourselves and the other and poking holes in old stereotypes. Rustom Bharucha’s idea of interculturalism in theatre is that it should imitate the swing of a pendulum in a back-and-forth movement (241). Bharucha’s pendulum models interculturalism as reciprocal, moving back and forth with cultural sources respected equally and with awareness of power differentials, to achieve a form of consensus. According to Bharucha, the answers to creating a more authentic hybrid is found in the in-between of the exchange: “It goes without saying that the real challenge in writing about interculturalism lies in figuring out the ‘inter,’ the space in between polarities, the dynamics between different points and locations” (241). Each of the play-texts in this review were chosen on the basis of their intercultural premises and of the ways they adopt Bharucha’s metaphoric pendulum.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".