ON THE BRINK: THEATRES SEARCH FOR A\nPOST-PANDEMIC MODEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates the ways in which the leaders responsible for nonprofit theatres behave in moments of crisis, focusing on the response to the events of 2020: the COVID-19 pandemic and a social justice movement kicked into high gear by Black Lives Matter.\n\nTheatres had been struggling to change in the years leading up to the crisis, with a shrinking subscriber base, increasing competition with digital forms of entertainment, and diminishing relevance with younger and diverse audience members. In spite of an articulated desire to practice Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), many theatres remained resolutely white on their stages, in their administrations and board rooms.\n\nMy research examines the immediate response to the crises and the actions undertaken in the three subsequent years, based on semi-structured interviews with the leadership of fifteen theatres across Canada. Conducted three years after the beginning of the pandemic, the interviews gave the artistic directors, executive directors, and chairs of the boards the opportunity to reflect on policy and practice changes made and how they perceived their success.\n\nWhile every theatre responded to the turmoil of 2020 by undertaking actions to address inequity, lack of diversity, exclusion, health and wellness, and work-life balance, by the time of the interviews, other factors were affecting the success of those initiatives: audiences were not returning to theatres, the cost of living was increasing, public funding was decreasing, and the public’s attention was on global concerns like climate change and war.\n\nI contend, based on the data compiled, that a governance model that was already flawed proved incapable of meeting the challenges of a crisis that was essentially existential in nature. Boards of directors are most prepared to deal with financial crises, but the larger crisis of 2020 exposed and exacerbated the systemic problems that already existed. Further, a failure to address the systemic issues means that changes made during the pandemic are failing, or being abandoned. Finally, I argue that that the systemic problems of the model are jeopardizing the survival of theatres.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.005 |
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".