A Reflection on <i>Canadian Theatre Review</i> and Recognizing Innovation and Integrity in Theatre for/by/with Young People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theatre for Young Audiences (TYA) has been present in Canadian Theatre Review since the very first issue. This article explores how young people, children, and the artists who create work for them, have been addressed in CTR, with a focus on the first 25 years. The article overviews ways the journal discussed artists, creative practice, research, festivals, playwriting, design, funding, space, working conditions and respect for the craft. CTR made space to discuss stylistically innovative, controversial, and feminist TYA works; CTR presented TYA works that were issue based, featured ethnocultural diversity, shared complex historical narratives, presented puppets, intergenerational community collaborations, and more. While the ways CTR authors represented young people, the artists who create for them, diverse identities and abilities, and Indigenous peoples was sometimes problematic and should be given further research, CTR was a platform for advocacy for young audiences and the artists who make for them. Comparing the creation process and outcomes of Notmonde (1975) and The Urban Wildlife Project (2023) demonstrates how much some early creative projects can inform and inspire work today. The overview demonstrates that while some of the issues that challenged TYA artists fifty years ago remain with us today, so do many of the opportunities and joys that creating work for young people makes possible.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".