Bibliographic record
Abstract
S tratford, Ontario, enjoys the highest rate of arts-related employ- ment per capita in Canada (Denis-Jacob 2012, Polèse 2011).The artistic reputation of this city of 33,000 hinges upon the activities of the Stratford Festival, as well as on the reaction of Canada's alternative theatre network to the classical mandate of this world-renowned institution.In post-centennial (i.e., post 1967) Canada, the alternative theatre movement rejected the Stratford Festival for its lack of a "localist" sensibility and depicted it as the exemplar of a placeless and universalist aesthetic (Knowles 1995(Knowles , 2002)).However, the sociocultural context of the Stratford Festival is slightly more complicated than this binary suggests because the Festival is an outgrowth of a "textual community" dating back to the city's founding in 1832, one that exploited what Daniel Fischlin calls "the Shakespeare effect" (Fischlin 2007, 4) to brand the city with Shakespearean signifiers which functioned, for residents, as marks of quality and aspiration to attract immigrants, tourists, and commercial investment (Rae 2015).While the Stratford Festival is the product of national and international forces, it is also the apotheosis of a civic Shakespeare tradition fostered by a small but influential cultural elite whose activities have met with varying degrees of support and resistance from politicians, business leaders, and the public for the past 185 years.Most accounts of the Stratford Festival's founding and development either elide or trivialize this historical context.However, this chapter will identify some of the flawed historical assumptions in the two grand narratives of the Stratford Festival's founding and then investigate the material and aesthetic impact of the Shakespeare tradition through the exemplary activities of the book collector, library
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".