On Genealogy: Inheriting Fault Lines in Canadian Theatre Criticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis offers case studies from Canada’s journalistic theatre criticism since the advent of the National Arts Centre in 1967. These case studies, emblemized by 1960s productions of The Ecstasy of Rita Joe and post-Y2K productions of bug and Kamloopa, are complemented and complicated by autoethnographic commentary as an early-career theatre critic since 2019. Drawing from my own training as a critic and selected case studies from Ontario’s existing canon of theatre criticism, I place my training and experiences in dialogue with events of the past and present, calling on Kim Senklip Harvey’s notion of “inheriting the past which came before” as a blueprint for empathetic theatre criticism. Citing essays by critics, artists, and scholars alike, I bolster this dialogue with proposed alternatives to Western reviewing practices, using Indigenous performances of the early 2020s and their resulting controversies as a point of departure for future reform within Canadian theatre criticism.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.078 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".