Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part of the apocrypha of stage lighting is that eighty per cent of the energy channelled through its instruments is converted to heat, while only twenty per cent is transformed to light. This is a ready-made metaphor for anyone who works in the individualistic, painterly world of the lighting designer. Somehow, the act of supplying the spiritual, psychological or artistic illumination for a theatrical piece turns out to take up only about a fifth of our directed energies. Conversely and undeniably, designers are connected to the larger life (and true heat) of a project by the scores of time-consuming communal jobs which involve communication, interpretation, prevarication and a fair share of lifting and tightening. These jobs grow and blossom exponentially in smaller theatres where a designer is not surrounded by the host of trained professionals and state-of-the-art equipment that insulate high-end artists from the technical perils of their creative work. Still, there is something life-affirming in getting back to the basics of small theatre design, in running up a ladder to see the creative environment unfolding immediately below. It may be pure sentiment that brings me here, but, looking at the world from the frontier outposts of lighting design, the small, or non-professional, or ill-equipped or rural theatres, it becomes easier to discern the manner in which past theatrical practitioners discovered how to separate the light from the heat.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".