Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, Canadian theatre researchers have taken interest in Applied Theatre and Performance practices, that is, practices with an explicit pedagogical, social, political or therapeutic aim that take place in educational, community, activist or health care contexts. Examples include theatrical elements of the sprawling Montreal Life Stories project reported on in recent years by Ted Little and Rahul Varma among others, and Are We There Yet, a participatory play by Edmonton-based playwright Jane Heather that toured extensively across the country educating young audiences about sexuality. I find it curious, however, that while these practices are being discussed using the term ‘Applied’ in international contexts, they seem to be taken up in more methodology- or discipline-specific conversations here in Canada such as drama- or theatre-in-education, ethnography, community theatre, theatre for development, art therapy, or practice-based research (to name some common possibilities). While I wouldn’t dispense with any of these specific conversations, I have wondered: why has the term ‘Applied research’ been less enthusiastically embraced in Canada than it has elsewhere? And is there reason to give it a warmer reception?
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".