MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380925943 · doi:10.3138/ctr.127.003

Intimate Acts with Obsolete Bodies: Theatre Gargantua’s e-<i>DENTITY</i> and Mediatized Theatre

2006· article· en· W4380925943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natalie Papoutsis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmediacyArtnobodySpace (punctuation)Representation (politics)Variety (cybernetics)MultitudeAestheticsVisual artsPerforming artsPhilosophyPoliticsComputer scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bodies and the people who inhabit and animate them are at the centre of Theatre Gargantua’s e-DENTITY,1 even in moments where nobody (or no-bodies) is visibly present. In the representation of the online, “remote” world, director Jacquie Thomas utilizes theatrical devices that rely on a high degree of presence, immediacy and human interaction. In contrast to this, Michael Spence’s script constructs every onstage exchange, with one exception, around individuals who are spatially dislocated. The performers’ bodies inhabit the same physical space, yet none of their characters share space in the dramatic frame. These onstage bodies are endlessly mutable, transforming both into set pieces (allowing images to be projected upon them) and a multitude of characters (the actors’ bodies are vessels filled by a variety of characters throughout the piece).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207