MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380929006 · doi:10.3138/ctr.118.021

<i>Testifyin’: Contemporary African Canadian Drama,</i> Volumes 1 and 2

2004· article· en· W4380929006 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Harry J. Elam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaAnnalsDiversity (politics)PoetryArtPerformance artIdentity (music)HistoryArt historyLiteratureSociologyAestheticsAnthropologyClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Djanet Sears’s Testifyin’: Contemporary African Canadian Drama, volumes 1 and 2, proudly proclaims the viability and variability of African Canadian drama. While Sears, in her introduction to volume 1, praises the resiliency of African Canadian theatrical production, she also remarks on the poor funding available at present for contemporary Black theatre companies and the limited recognition that African Canadian drama has garnered within the annals of Canadian theatre history. To rectify this absence, Sears has collected ten plays in volume 1 and nine additional plays in volume 2 – plays by a total, in the two volumes together, of some twenty different playwrights. (Some of the works are co-written, and three playwrights, including Sears, appear in both volumes.) Together, these works boldly announce the diversity of contemporary African Canadian drama in form and content. These nineteen plays speak imaginatively to the multiple ways that Blackness and African Canadian identity have been constructed and repeatedly reconstructed in Canada, past and present.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→