Bibliographic record
Abstract
A visit to the last ten days of the formidable Edinburgh International Festival and its famous Fringe – the ur-festivals for English language international festivals and fringes in Canada as elsewhere – provides the opportunity for some comparative musings on the cultural role played by such events in both Scotland and Canada. In a consciously provocative opinion piece in the Spring 1992 issue of Theatre Forum, Ritsaert ten Cate asked, “Festivals: Who Needs ‘Em?” In attempting to answer the question – “travel agents, who can offer package deals” is the closest he seems to get, quoting a “deadly serious” American student (87) – ten Cate raises some issues that remain crucial to any discussion of the cultural work performed by international festivals at the turn of the millennium. He focuses on a familiar, mutually reinforcing binary that seems to set artists/producers against the economic and other interests of governments, funders and “the part of society that provides cash backing for a festival (an overlapping, but essentially different part of society from that which makes up our audiences)” (87). It’s “‘us’ against ‘them,” he says (86). But his essay also touches on less familiar, more useful territory, including “the presentation of our registered cultural trademarks” (87) and “a move toward multiculturalism which seems inspired more by pragmatic reasoning, political opportunism, and the availability of funding than … by any involvement of the heart” (87). Noting ruefully that “we have witnessed just how successfully the arts can be incorporated as a useful aspect of consumer society,” he argues, against his own “better” instincts, that festival organizers “must consider what their own function is within the larger context of a melange of art and society and the world …” (86, emphasis in original).
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".