Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Prime Minister Jean Chretien, arts groups in Canada are about to see the “biggest new investment in the arts in Canada that any government has made since the creation of the Canada Council more than forty years ago” (Address). “Views and Reviews” features a commentary on this May announcement by Maria DiCenzo, who has written in numerous places over the last few years about the influence of policy decisions by both governments and non-profit boards on the development of alternative forms of theatre. While DiCenzo is not in a position to speculate on the actual outcomes of this new spending, since regulations and concrete numbers will only become available around the time you are reading this issue of CTR, she does point to the potential long-term political implications of this change in the federal government’s discourse about the arts. Will it be a one-time media event, or a real change of direction in arts funding? As DiCenzo notes, only time will tell, but, as we go to press, the signs of a renewed interest in the creative work of a range of Canadian artists are positive.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.156 | 0.172 |
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".