Women’s Auto/biographical Theatre: Affirmation, Preservation and Intercultural Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auto/biography has gained new respect through theory written by feminist scholars. People have produced autobiographies for many years, but they have generally been considered either instructive, as when great leaders explain how they became who they are, or merely the product of a self-absorbed person. As Sherrill Grace explains in her introduction to Theatre and AutoBiography, “Until fairly recently, the anti-personal bias of modernism dismissed the auto/biographical as self-indulgent, effeminate, and thus as a failure of art itself” (“Theatre” 20). By focusing on ideas of gender oppression as well as on the lives of women, feminist theatre theory and practice have participated in the societal discourse that has encouraged women to write their own work. This increasingly positive atmosphere has had results. There has been a 23% increase in women playwrights being produced in Canada in the twenty years since Fraticelli’s report on the status of women in Canadian theatre (Burton 21). Auto/biographical theatre is a natural outcome of this work. Women feel stronger in their lives; they are aware that their voices matter (and that they will be listened to carefully) and therefore are compelled to present themselves: [T]he autobiographical voice and eye/l are available to minorities and to groups, such as women, who have been excluded from the dominant discourse and whose stories have been dismissed as worthless … [A] desire for agency, voice, visibility, and subjectivity has surfaced, clamouring for attention and seeking ways to create meaningful identity .. . While this predilection for AutoBiography no doubt satisfies a basic voyeuristic impulse (and does well in the marketplace), it also represents a crucial site for inscribing and preserving cultural memory. (Grace, “Theatre” 14-5)
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".