ArtsPraxis: Volume 2, Issue 1
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ARTSPRAXIS responds to the call for a rich dialogue between all those committed to the arts in educational and community contexts.The journal will include contributions from arts educators, therapists, arts agencies, arts administrators, funding bodies, arts scholars, and community artists from diverse settings.The journal emphasizes critical analysis of the arts in society.ARTSPRAXIS provides a platform for contributors to interrogate why the arts matter and how the arts can be persuasively argued for in a range of domains.The pressing issues which face the arts in society will be deconstructed.Contributors are encouraged to write in a friendly and accessible manner appropriate to a wide readership.Nonetheless, contributions should be informed and scholarly, and must demonstrate the author's knowledge of the material being discussed.Clear compelling arguments are preferred, arguments which are logically and comprehensively supported by the appropriate literature.Authors are encouraged to articulate how their research design best fits the question (s) being examined.Research design includes the full range of quantitative-qualitative methods, including arts-based inquiry; case study, narrative and ethnography; historical and autobiographical; experimental and quasi-experimental analysis; survey and correlation research.Articles which push the boundaries of research design and those which encourage innovative methods of presenting findings are encouraged.Contributions which seek dialogue across the art forms are welcomed.The genesis of ARTSPRAXIS has been informed by the results of a literature search which identified over 60 journals in the arts disciplines but few which facilitated dialogue across and between the arts disciplines.The second issue of ArtsPraxis will reflect on and respond to the issues raised during The NYU Forum on Ethnotheatre and Theatre for Social Justice (2006).This forum is part of an ongoing series NYU is hosting on significant issues that impact on the broad field of educational and applied theatre.Previous forums have been dedicated to teaching artistry (2005) and assessment in arts education (2003).Ethnotheatre references applied theatre presentations powered by authentic human stories.Theatre for Social Justice aims to elevate discourse on diversity and inclusion.The NYU Forum on Ethnotheatre and Theatre for Social Justice will explore how theatre contributes to culture and politics. Key questions the Forum hopes to address: What is theatre for social justice and what contribution does ethnotheatre make to social discourse? How can ethnotheatre operate as a qualitative research method? Is there an ethnotheatre aesthetic? Who are the beneficiaries of theatre for social justice and ethnotheatre? How is Theatre for Social Justice, in its diverse manifestations, reflected in our arts education research practices? What are some of the ethical issues involved when we use theatre as a tool in qualitative research?Contributions are not limited to participants in the Forum.We encourage article submissions from interdisciplinary artists and scholars across the many fields in which this innovative arts-based research methodology is being employed.Our goals are to motivate a dialogue among a wide variety of practitioners and researchers that will enrich the development of ethnotheatre and expose new audiences and communities to the transformative power of theatre for social justice.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,023 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,218 | 0,092 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».