Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like to express my gratitude to Murray Pomerance, editor of the exceptional Horizons of Cinema series at SUNY Press, for his long-term friendship and deeply encouraging support of my writing on film.He convinced me by his excitement during our initial conversation on the topic of "theatrical space in film" that there was a book in it, and that I must go ahead with it.Over the next two years, he continued to push me, with his special brand of insistence, to stay the course.It is difficult for me to believe that I have been directing and acting in plays for more than a half century.In the course of this inexhaustibly exhilarating education, I have had ample opportunity to think practically and theoretically about the nature of theatre space and its diverse uses.Gilberto Perez, in his study of the rhetoric of film, The Eloquent Screen, provides some phrases about rhetorical "figures of arrangement" onscreen that apply equally well to our engagement with space onstage: "where it puts us, how it orients us, how it makes us feel" (xxi).He also reminds us of the importance of "spectator specifics" in any consideration of the deployment of film technique.What film form is able to do to spectators, what it enables them to experience in a narrative, is crucially dependent on what they "bring to it" (xxi).I have had a great many enlightening conversations over the years with theatre collaborators, valued colleagues at the University of Manitoba, and students who have shaped my thinking about the theatrical issues I investigate in this book.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".