Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine years ago, I wrote an article for Canadian Theatre Review, titled “Into the Margins,” about the challenges of being a Black theatre artist in Vancouver. It was an emotionally charged article. I lamented the loss of my Montreal and Black communities. I berated Canadian theatre for its racial exclusivity, its exclusionary practices, and its narrow-minded perception that Black theatre was of special interest and not suitable for mass (read mainstream) consumption. I vented the frustration of constantly having to prove oneself as a Black artist and justify one’s presence long after one’s talents and accomplishments should have earned respect and acceptance. I spoke to the fears and ignorance and misconceptions within the community, and the rejection and isolation of those daring enough to confront racial issues head-on. I voiced my longing to belong, my yearning to grow and my need for a safe space in which to explore my craft or simply be. At the end of this article, I concluded that mainstream Vancouver/Canadian theatre could not and would not sustain me. Believing bell hooks to be correct in her assessment that marginal space is revolutionary space, I exiled myself to the fringes of the theatre community (see hooks 1992).
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.673 | 0.425 |
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".