MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380926690 · doi:10.3138/ctr.103.006

Making It Easy to Believe: A Tourist Goes to the Psychic Fair

2000· article· en· W4380926690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychicAestheticsWitnessAsideExhibitionConsciousnessMysticismPsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophyArtLiteratureVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is a non-believer to do in the face of an exhibition of the supernatural by those variously called psychics, clairvoyants, seers, mystics, sensitives or spiritualists? While clearly the agreement between the exhibitor and the client/spectator calls for belief in the supernatural’s existence and immediate presence, disbelief does not preclude a relationship. If I am a non-believer, however, I must read the event quite differently based on the intentions of the exhibitor. I can consider the exhibitor a liar, and observe the event as if it is fraud; in this case I might watch in stony silence, or vocal effrontery, or cynical amusement, depending on the extent of the exhibitor’s power over the client/spectator, the amount of money changing hands … and the strength of my own disbelief. I might consider the exhibitor genuine but self-deluded, and observe the event with astonishment, or anger, or condescension - again, depending on my perception of any danger to believers, or to myself. Finally, I can witness the exhibition of the supernatural as if it is a theatrical performance, and admire and assess the psychic according to character and spectacle. I would then put aside the non-believer’s concerns about fraud and self-delusion and assume a measure of theatrical self-consciousness on the part of all concerned. To some extent this may be true; a good “show” can be appreciated under any belief system. To some extent, however, I suggest that this is another form of self-delusion, a false “as if” that positions the event at a comfortable distance and the spectator on an apparently safer higher ground from which to watch.1 While the cultures of the occult and the theatre have a long and inextricably complex relationship, both have just as complex a relationship with the culture of commerce. Not all psychics conduct their readings as small businesses, any more than all theatrical performance is commercial. But to the extent that commerce is a goal, strategies are at work that are not necessarily theatrical.2

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0160.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207