MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380926335 · doi:10.3138/ctr.131.015

Building the HIVE / Disrupting the Plan

2007· article· en· W4380926335 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrew Templeton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerpetuityShitCraftClubPlan (archaeology)The artsVisual artsSpace (punctuation)Performing artsSociologyMedia studiesArtGeographyArt historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vancouver must be one of the most planned geographical spaces in the world. The city’s planning department is hailed internationally, and there is even something called the “Vancouver model” (it has to do with condos). The principles that govern Vancouver can seem rather Sim-City in their tidiness: citizens can sleep in this zone, party in this zone and get sick in this zone. At some point, the planners seem to have designated Granville Island the “performance zone.” So it’s here that you’ll find many of Vancouver’s theatre spaces and companies, including two stages for the Arts Club (one given in perpetuity to Theatre Sports), the Waterfront Theatre, Performance Works, Playwrights Theatre Centre (and their performance space), Carousel, Arts Umbrella and so on. The idea of putting all these companies and venues in close proximity sounds wonderful in theory. The only problem: no one actually lives on Granville Island and – despite being central – it’s a pain in the ass to get to. In the imagination of the city, Granville Island is not a cultural centre – it’s a farmers’ market, a year-round craft fair and a place for seagulls to shit on tourists.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→