MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7130420375 · doi:10.7202/1123403ar

Rigorous Dreaming

2025· article· en· W7130420375 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shay Erlich, Sarah Conn

Notice bibliographique

RevuePerformance Matters · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDisability Rights and Representation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRigourFlourishingThrivingDisability studiesThe artsAbleismEconomic Justice

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

“Rigorous Dreaming” explores emergent curatorial practices for large-scale disability-centred performance. As these curatorial practices grow, so too does the need for intentional critique, whether aesthetic, dramaturgical, or ethical, a need that is often filled by simplistic attempts to define what “good” disability art is. This essay traces emergent curatorial practices that support the flourishing of bold large-scale disability performances on national and international stages. These practices are made tangible through an outline of the curatorial approach that the National Arts Centre’s National Creation Fund is developing to engage with disability creation. Rooted in disability justice and led by a collaborative team, this approach centres disability knowledge–generating practices and offers imaginative space for disabled artists to dream about their artistic and production practices. Notably, the approach intentionally centres artistic rigour when considering new artistic creations, rather than relying on specific artistic conventions, using a definition that honours the strategies that are critical for disabled artists when developing their own conventions of rigour. Erlich and Conn argue that it is essential to differentiate between rigour and Western-colonial definitions of professional aesthetics, in order to allow disability-informed definitions of rigour to converge within the discipline. Disabled artists in Canada and beyond deserve creative processes that support them in sharing their stories loudly and boldly in our largest performance forums. Refuting the notion that professional disability art should look a particular way, and celebrating the aesthetic diversity—including the awkward and grotesque—that naturally emerges from rigorous process, “Rigorous Dreaming” champions the curatorial groundwork that is necessary for a supported and thriving disability performance sector in Canada. Plain Language Abstract (adapted by Kelsie Acton with Daniel Foulds) “Rigorous Dreaming” talks about deciding which types of disability art performances get to perform in large theatres. By large theaters, we mean theatres that can fit three hundred people. We are curious about how people decide what shows to put in large theatres. We want to know how people decide if a disability performance is “good” or not. We think that it is important to decide what is “good” by looking at the performance and how the performance is made. We want people to understand what makes disability unique and why disability art might look or be shown differently than most shows in big theatres. This article explains what the people who choose performance and performers need so that they can create disability art for large theatres in Canada and around the world. The writers, Sarah and Shay, both work at the National Arts Centre’s National Creation Fund. This paper talks about how they and other disabled artists are making ways to decide together whether to support a disability performance. This is important because the National Arts Centre is a large theatre that shows many art forms, not just disability art. The ways they have come up with make sure that disability justice, and disability culture, are an important part of making decisions. This includes making sure that artists feel like they have full control to make performances that come from their experiences without worrying about what is “normal” for large theatres. Because of this, we are curious about how and why an artist made the decisions that they did. We think it is important to understand how and why something was created before we make a decision. We also think that how the work looks or is performed should be judged by disabled standards. Disabled artists shouldn’t be judged by what we usually see in large theatres. We want disabled artists in Canada and across the world to be able to make the art that is important to them. We want disabled artists to show their art in the largest theatres in the world. We think that disability art that comes from our own experience and culture is beautiful and professional and should be celebrated. We know that disability can be messy and complicated. Sometimes, our art is messy and complicated too. This is a natural part of disability art, and we want theatres around the world to understand that this is a beautiful and professional part of our work. We hope that this article helps theatres and artists have an easier time talking to each other about how wonderful disability arts can be for everyone.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,073
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,245

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,014
Communication savante0,0110,011
Science ouverte0,0030,014
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0730,025

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,317
Écart entre enseignants0,307 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePerformance MattersMême sujetDisability Rights and RepresentationTravaux en français237 207