Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theme of this issue of Canadian Theatre Review was suggested by Marc Maufort, a professor at Université Libre de Bruxelles whose area of specialization is Canadian and Australian theatre. I want to thank Professor Maufort for reminding the editors that Canadian practitioners and their work have an impact beyond the boundaries of Canada. Professor Maufort’s own commitment to Canadian drama serves as a salient reminder that Canadian studies is an important part of the curricula of universities located in countries which were once the Commonwealth, and now, as the relationship between the imperial centre and its colonies is being rethought through postcolonial studies, drama written by Canadians is being positioned in site-specific ways. As Geeta Budhiraja’s commentary on two productions directed by Robert Fothergill, a Canadian playwright and academic, suggests, within the particular space of an academically sponsored institute, Canadian drama reads as “foreign,” so that the audience identifies with in it ways that resonate with its experience. Joanne Tompkins suggests that the classes in which she teaches Canadian drama in Australia, a settler colony like Canada, offer the discursive space to address commonality and difference between Australia and Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.024 |
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".