MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380928434 · doi:10.3138/ctr.130.020

Lineages, Geographies: A Review of the Canadian Festival of Spoken Word, Toronto, 11-14 October 2006

2007· review· en· W4380928434 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Heather Hermant, MissTer Rotary

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetrySpoken wordHistoryLegendArtGesturePerforming artsLiteratureArt historyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Veteran spoken-word performer and director of the Calgary International Spoken Word Festival, Sheri-D Wilson kicked off the opening ceremonies of the 2006 Canadian Festival of Spoken Word in Toronto, a fitting gesture, given that Calgary is the newest team addition to the national event. In the midst of entertaining poetry featuring drag queens in pasties, Wilson lamented having recently heard a younger poet “pissing on the Beats.” She implored an audience of poets, “We must as a group know our history.” Veteran dub poet activist Lillian Allen echoed the importance of history when she performed as the Female Honouree on closing night: “if you don’t know where you’re coming from, you can’t see where you’re going to.” The Festival proved that this “we” derives from an eclectic mix of poetic lineages, histories and networks within and beyond poetry. For example, references to Apollinaire, the nineteenth-century-born French-speaking Polish—Swiss—Italian who coined the term “surrealist,” shared the stage with hip-hop legend Tupac Shakur, who coined the much misunderstood acronym “THUG LIFE” (The Hate You Give Little Infants F — -s Everybody).

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)0.008
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0200.044
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreReview

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→