Staging the North: Twelve Canadian Plays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the diverse perspectives provided by both visitors to and residents of these various Northern “stages,” Staging the North: Twelve Canadian Plays challenges the existence of any monolithic idea or myth of the North. “Degrees of North,” Sherrill Grace’s valuable introduction to this anthology, indicates that the editors were aiming for this kind of interrogation when selecting plays for inclusion: “Whose North? What stage?… Which playwrights? Staging for whom? The ‘true North,’ like the ‘we’ who guard it in the Canadian national anthem, is a complex, changing, and problematic term” (ix). Staging the North successfully captures the “complex, multiple identity” of the North and, by implication, Canada (xxi). The winter 1992 issue of Canadian Theatre Review, devoted to “Arctic Theatre Makers,” observes that “throughout the North, theatre has evolved from the oral traditions of storytelling” and that therefore scripted plays are unusual (3). Sherrill Grace and her co-editors have compiled a useful anthology with extensive introductions to each play and playwright and a representative sampling of regions, terrains and outlooks. There is, however, unity in this diversity, if not a pattern in the mosaic: the indebtedness that all twelve plays have to the oral and visual traditions of those art forms indigenous to the North.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".