MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391383641 · doi:10.3138/ctr.195.015

Review: Canadian Performance Documents and Debates: A Sourcebook

2024· article· en· W4391383641 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sarah Robbins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Sarah Robbins (Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Toronto) reviews Canadian Performance Documents and Debates: A Sourcebook (2022), edited by Anthony J. Vickery, Glen F. Nichols, and Allana C. Lindgren. Employing an intersectional lens, Dr. Robbins considers what is present and absent in this expansive text of historical ‘Canadian’ artifacts and documents from 1606 through to 1967, the potential for a second volume, and the sourcebook’s value as a teaching tool for instructors aiming to both trouble linear trajectories of history and increase engagement with historical documentation of performance from the lands we now call ‘Canada.’

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0440.060
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicAfrican history and culture studiesFrench-language works237,207