The Shape of Space: Laban Movement Analysis as a Methodology for Dance Dramaturgy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laban Movement Analysis (LMA) gives a Dance Dramaturge a practical, straightforward methodology for deepening the creative process and increasing the potential towards positive outcomes for choreographers and dancers. Rudolf Laban created a system of looking at and analyzing human movement along with colleague Irmagarde Bartenieff. Present day applications of their theories have led to expansions of the system and elaborations of fundamental concepts that have influenced the makers of contemporary dance in many new and studied manners. This article will discuss the use of LMA as a Dance Dramaturgical methodology. It will cite professional experiences through a specific case study with Toronto-based choreographer Yvonne Ng. Visual diagrams are included that outline a score of how a dance dramaturg can work with LMA material. LMA provides valuable dramaturgical tools to work with choreographers by helping to shape their choreographic statements.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".