(Re)presentions of the Anglophone Other: Dramaturgical Strategies of \nResistance and Revisioning on the French-Canadian Stage 1910-1929
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the history, contexts, and dramaturgies of French-Canadian theatre from 1910 to 1929. The study opens with a survey of the beginnings of French-Canadian theatre history and an exploration of the historical, sociopolitical, and cultural ideas and movements that came about in early 20th century Canada. Through extensive archival research, this study provides an in-depth analysis of the theatrical landscape of these two decades situated within the established sociopolitical and cultural contexts, identifying trends in theme, genre, format, and playwright positionality. Furthermore, this research project delves deeper into a particular corpus of plays, exploring the ways in which French-Canadian playwrights represented and represented Anglophone culture and the power dynamics between French- and English Canadians in their works. This study uses a post-colonial lens to examine the dramaturgical strategies used by playwrights to undermine and subvert the dominant cultural and historical narratives through creative choices relating to character, language, time, and space. The study concludes with a consideration of the possibility or potentiality of the subversive act of revisioning of Anglophone culture and (re)writing of cultural and historical narratives on stage to contribute to the understanding of and creation of French-Canadian national identity in the early 20th century.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".