MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380926387 · doi:10.3138/ctr.109.006

Making <i>MindLands:</i> The Multimedia Production

2002· article· en· W4380926387 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P. J. Rivers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictionCharacter (mathematics)MillWork (physics)Performance artSociologyVisual artsArtAestheticsMedia studiesArt historyHistoryLawEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Budget was the first, but not the main reason to stage MindLands as a one-man multimedia play. Theatre Aquarius’ Managing Artistic Director, Max Reimer, passed this script on to me with a conviction that seeing only the character of Tom on stage was the best way to produce the play. I was left to figure out how this might work. I was at first concerned with how MindLands might be received outside of its “hometown” of Sault Ste. Marie. Given that the piece concerns a steelworker, it seems an easy fit in a steel town like Hamilton, but I soon realized that the crisis Tom faces transcends the steel industry. Tom belongs to a culture of labour that is threatened with extinction in an increasingly unstable economic landscape. Having committed to a life of work at the local mill, Tom, in the middle of his life, finds himself with an uncertain future and no idea how to adapt to his new circumstances. He is an analog guy in a digital world.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicTheatre and Performance Studies→French-language works237,207→