MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380926243 · doi:10.3138/ctr.119.009

Pure Research

2004· article· en· W4380926243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian Quirt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationsortVisual artsProduct (mathematics)ManagementSociologyComputer scienceArtMathematicsCommunicationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pure Research1 came out of a conversation I had with former Theatre Centre Artistic Director David Duclos in 1997. At the time, the Theatre Centre operated a program called R & D – research and development – which successfully generated a wide range of innovative new works. But the title was inaccurate. We did a lot of development, but did not really do any research; product was the goal of every process. So I asked how the program could accommodate the sort of research, for example, that a high-tech company conducts, which may or may not result in a new item on the shelves. What would a program dedicated solely to theatre research look like?

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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.327
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.327
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1090.042

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207