MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380928436 · doi:10.3138/ctr.132.005

Nightwood Theatre: A Woman’s Work Is Always Done

2007· article· en· W4380928436 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shelley Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComedyResidenceWork (physics)Period (music)ArtMedia studiesVisual artsSociologyEngineeringAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nightwood is the pre-eminent women’s theatre company in Canada. Over the years, the company has presented itself as a producer of new works by Canadian women, as a provider of opportunities for women theatre artists, as an inclusive theatre company committed to producing work by women of colour and as the “home company” for some of the biggest names in Canadian theatre. Ann-Marie MacDonald is probably the best example of a “big name,” since her 1988, Chalmers- and Governor General’s Award—winning comedy Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) is one of the most frequently produced of all Canadian plays. But I would argue, in fact, that almost every woman playwright in the country has had some connection with Nightwood, whether through its Groundswell festival of new work, its sponsorship of the annual Five Minute Feminist Cabaret or its playwright-in-residence and various play development programs. Since Nightwood’s inception in 1979, the company has produced both collective creations and plays by single authors, mounted tours, collaborated with other companies and sought out many ways to encourage new work by women. Because of its unique status as a women’s theatre company spanning the period from 1979 to the present, Nightwood can be examined as something of a microcosm for developments in feminist theatre and the production of women’s work.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207