Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study describes the experience of professional contemporary dancers studying and applying the Alexander Technique to their dancing. This study was motivated by: 1. years of teaching both dance and somatics, 2. a strong desire to better understand how the Alexander Technique can be applied by dancers, and 3. a gap that the researchers perceived in the available literature connecting these two fields. Throughout years of teaching dance and somatics the researchers observed the increasing challenges that dance students had to confront in order to meet the requirements of today's dance careers. The movement efficiency that makes dancers less susceptible to injury and, at the same time, renders them more expressive, requires the development of acute sensorial awareness as well as the sharpening of cognitive faculties. As teachers of dance and somatics, the researchers became increasingly aware of the importance and the difficulty of applying somatic methods to dance training at both professional and pre-professional levels. Somatic study is now part of the curriculum of many professional schools and university programs in dance worldwide. It has been the subject of studies looking at its application to various aspects of dance. In order to facilitate integration of somatic concepts to vocational dance classes, the researchers thought it was relevant to look at how professional dancers use the Alexander Technique both in their professional career and daily life. Just as it takes years to train a dancer, it may take years to incorporate the complexity of somatic work into one's dancing. Looking at what somatic education means for professional dancers can inspire the development of teaching strategies informed by professional practice.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".