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

Rigorous Dreaming

2025· article· en· W7130420375 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,783
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,289

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

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