Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judging by the proliferation of recent works by and about Augusto Boal, as well as the number of course readers and critical anthologies in which his work is excerpted, his place in the canon of modern theatre theory seems assured.1 This critical consensus might almost seem too cosy given that Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) techniques are usually regarded as a means to help effect progressive, perhaps radical social change. Thus, Douglas Paterson and Mark Weinberg (in an interview with Boal) puzzle over the fact that “people in established critical circles have not come after you. We would think there would be a ground-swell of resistance, because by taking on the Aristotelian structure, you are critiquing one of the fundamental grounds of the way western theatre is practiced” (“We Are All Theater” 18). Of course, the short answer to this puzzle is that it is no puzzle at all: Boal’s celebrated critique of Aristotle is itself firmly grounded in a theoretical position that is familiar to many “established” and supportive critics as having been staked out by Brecht a good fifty years earlier.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".