MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071647532 · doi:10.1080/08929092.2012.678227

Approaches to Developing Research-Based Theatre

2012· article· en· W2071647532 on OpenAlexaff
Graham W. Lea

Bibliographic record

VenueYouth Theatre Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedScripting languageSociologyPedagogyTheatre studiesVisual artsComputer scienceArtDrama

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the literature to identify and describe three general approaches used in the development of research-based theatre scripts: collective, playwright-centred, and composite. Each approach is situated within both conventional and research-based theatre literature. After elucidating each approach, a representative project of each approach is explored in depth. Discussions of the projects, undertaken in 2009 at the University of British Columbia, provide insight into some of the tensions inherent in working in each 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.031
Scholarly communication0.0190.012
Open science0.0070.020
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.589
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYouth Theatre JournalSame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207