The Designer’s Dilemma 2.0: Visual-ness and <i>Canadian Theatre Review</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a brief overview of the fifty-year relationship between scenography/design and Canadian Theatre Review ( CTR). In the past and given the journal’s (necessary?) privileging of text, this relationship has, at times, been fraught, perhaps even non-existent. The essay problematizes ‘scenography’ by recognizing that with very few exceptions, there are very few self-identifying scenographers to be found within the pages of CTR or working in Canadian theatre. This has led to concerns of representation, for when the journal has focused its attention on the visual, scenographers and designers have often responded in ways that downplay the creative, the collaborative, and the thoughtful and embrace the pragmatic. Despite the many challenges of capturing scenography/design in a two-dimensional journal, CTR has demonstrated great leadership in expanding the understanding of how theatre is defined. Scenography/design has greatly benefited from this more inclusive approach to understanding performance
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 | 0.025 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".