Constructing and cultivating a national theatrical system, 1806–24
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Much has been written about the beginnings and decline of the French system for theatrical infrastructure first devised by Napoleon to oversee performance culture across the nation and lasting for almost sixty-years (1806–1864). In this article, though, I argue that new perspectives on the relationship between state governance and French theatre can be illuminated by exploring previously neglected reforms and debates between ministers about the function of provincial theatre during the first quarter of the century. I reconstruct the archival trail of ministerial plans, draft proposals, and marginal scribbles concerning provincial theatre to trace the process whereby theatrical issues were discussed, acted upon or abandoned between 1806 to 1824. These documents, I suggest, reveal the steady development of ministerial conceptions of the social and political role of the provincial French stage, charting a shift from the government’s focus on the theatrical system’s political and moral issues to the new importance placed on fostering social and artistic priorities. I highlight that such a shift, in turn, allowed a state-led conception of the national value of the work of regional companies in terms that had been previously reserved for the capital’s institutions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".