MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380928726 · doi:10.3138/ctr.108.009

“The Whole Thing You’re Doing Is White Man’s Ways”: <i>fareWel’</i>s Northern Tour

2001· article· en· W4380928726 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christine Lenze

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaWhite (mutation)StorytellingResistance (ecology)Extension (predicate logic)Performance artNatural (archaeology)SociologyHistoryArt historyNarrativeMedia studiesArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of Native performance on Canadian stages in the late twentieth century is determined by some to be a “logical extension” of the practice of First Nations storytelling (Taylor 140). First Nations performances have certainly incorporated culturally specific aspects, and some tribes, like the Kwakiutl of British Columbia, have performed ritual dramas for hundreds of years. In an interview with Hartmut Lutz, however, playwright Daniel David Moses remains hesitant about linking structural categories like “drama” to First Nations performance. As Moses explains, I’m not sure whether it’s ... a natural resistance to codifying something that seems to be in the process of developing. You don’t want to give something a wrong name before it’s really been born.... I think [First Nations writers] have an opportunity here with the influence of an oral aesthetic, to develop things that go beyond those genres, which are categories that are very much a result of a book culture.(163)

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207