Knowing how to play or being playful? The playful/ontic approach and intergenerational theatre in Canada and India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract James Thompson’s 2004 article ‘Digging Up Stories’ suggests Theatre for Development’s focus has mostly been on epistemic concerns. Projects emphasize participants learning techniques or exercises to be applied in various contexts. Thompson proposes Theatre for Development should draw back from epistemic concerns to work with the ontic concerns of communities. In light of Thompson’s analysis, I can see my time-planning process and performance have placed ontic considerations as primary and epistemic concerns as secondary. Working as assistant director of GeriActors and Friends (G&F), an intergenerational theatre company based in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and while consulting towards the creation of an intergenerational theatre company in Tamil Nadu, India, I have employed playfulness as the primary state of being for the theatrical processes. Playfulness can be utilized in intergenerational theatre and Theatre for Development projects to embrace Thompson’s proposed focus on the ontic approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".