Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constitutive Shakespeareanness of Canadian theatre is a fact little neglected by either its historians or its critics. Yet the imperial logic that brought about this cultural paradox, and that surfaces, for instance, in Tyrone Guthrie’s invention of Shakespeare as the prerequisite to a national stage, or in Michael Langham’s grumpy contention with the “unnerving assault of Canadian nationalism” while at the helm of the Stratford Festival (7), remains a beguiling topic of critical inquiry, particularly for its flagrant, unapologetic visibility. What is perhaps less conspicuous – or rather, what lies hidden in plain sight – is the degree to which this institutionalization of Shakespeare at the heart of Canadian theatrical culture has promoted, by Stratfordian repetition, straight and narrow gender roles. Even those few productions that have foregrounded national issues rather than the putatively universal appeal of young or dynastic love – Langham’s Anglo/Québécois Henry V, for instance, or the Lepage/McCall Romeo & Juliette – only illustrate the reflexiveness with which Shakespearean dramatizations of courtship and marriage have been tapped as allegories of reconciliation for Canada’s “two solitudes.”1 In other words, Canadian Shakespeare, when it acknowledges its local habitation, disseminates politics in terms and acts of heterosexual love.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".