Afterword: Please Mind the Gap between Theatre and Philosophy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The historical gulf and frequent antipathy between the practitioners of theatre and philosophy has been well documented. This article seeks to establish a framework for combining the two subjects that, rather than denying the gap between them, looks to that gap as a productive space. The first part of the article sketches a brief history of the engagement of the two disciplines, from Plato to contemporary academics, while noting that these successful engagements involve, not the erasure of the philosophical–theatrical boundary, but instead the deployment of one as a new lens through which to view the other. The article goes on to illustrate examples of the successful use of theatre in the work of several philosophers, then turns to thespians whose work productively engages philosophy. Each of these is considered, in turn, as an example of the practice of “minding the gap,” and the article calls for a continued interaction between theatre and philosophy that acknowledges their separation rather than trying to erase it.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it