Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As our world becomes more and more interconnected, a key to moving forward and evolving is to encourage collaborations. Meaningful (creative) collaborations have the capacity to foster a sense of community and partnership as well as to create the space for new ideas, advancements, and solutions to old problems. At the root (and core) of collaboration is communication: without this, collaboration would be all but impossible. This, for me, was a central idea behind the Santorini Voice Symposium, although it has taken many months since the event for me to see and state the idea clearly. During the conception, planning, and event, I was operating on instinct, that is, on the basis of a deep curiosity about bringing together these two worlds (the artistic/creative and the academic/intellectual), both of which hold profound personal meaning for me. In retrospect, the fact that the mission was somewhat unclear, and that the event was lovingly labelled experiment without an hypothesis, is likely what made it so successful. There was no agenda. There was no goal, as such. There was merely the desire to bring together two groups of wonderful people in one of the loveliest places on earth. These were people I believed needed to meet. I knew Kristin Linklater's work would resonate deeply with the philosophers (as it had done and continues to do with me). Mainly I was confident that these two groups of people (actors and philosophers) would love getting to know one another and that something would happen. As it turns out, together we fell down (or first created and then fell down) a rabbit hole of sorts, and while I can attest to the fact that the symposium had a profound impact on me and on all those involved, I believe it also has deep ramifications and importance for our world(s). I began to get a hint of this potential worldwide impact a few days after the symposium ended. An incredibly strong, wild, crazy(-making) wind swept over Santorini. The windstorm lasted about four days and the locals joked about clothes being torn off clotheslines and ending up in Crete. Perhaps it was not a joke: the wind was strong enough to knock me over! It is known as the Meltemi, and is famous for seeming to blow from (and to) all directions at once. In the same way that a strong, deep sigh of relief can clear out feelings and experiences to make way for what is next, I felt that this wind was taking the intense work we had done together and blowing it far and wide! It was both spreading the word and clearing space for whatever was to come next. I relaxed into the idea that though I was desperate somehow to share what we had done with as many people as possible, this would happen quite naturally without my having to push. And (thank you, Meltemi!) that seems to be the case. As I reflect on this extraordinary experience these many months later, I see, for myself, three distinct phases of the project: Phase (1), the conception, the dream, and the planning; Phase 2, the event itself, the realization, the doing, Phase 3 (the one we are in currently), the describing of that doing, the distilling, and the telling, in order to disseminate our experience to others. I will address each of these in what follows. But first, a preliminary note: while I have a deep respect for the written word (and, admittedly, fears about not being a good writer), I also have a strong bias in favour of the spoken voice as the best medium for communication. I believe in the voice as a medium and am much more comfortable speaking than writing, more confident that I am better able to make myself heard/understood when speaking than when writing. Luckily for me, it is clear that there are those who believe that their true voices are revealed in their writing. As an actor, for example, I am grateful to the playwrights who have expressed themselves deeply and fully and given me fantastic characters to study. I wish so much, however, that I could be having a conversation with you (the reader) about this event. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».