Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Ric Knowles, at the instigation of former UBC theatre student Helina Patience, proposed publishing an issue of CTR on sound design, it seemed that the task should be straightforward. Sound design, one would think, is similar enough to other design disciplines in the theatre that it ought to be a matter of describing the history and current state of the practice and of finding some examples of how it is currently being deployed. One might then speculate intelligently on matters like the future impact of technology or intercultural approaches to theatre and perhaps attempt to glimpse a near future, in which image projection, light and sound might merge to form an integrated scenographic syntax – which, as Robert Gardiner slyly proposed at a recent Performance Creation Canada conference, would make designers altogether superfluous.1
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.043 |
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".