Bibliographic record
Abstract
In lieu of an abstract, here is an excerpt from this article: Unlike the more private readings of books, critical discussions of children’s plays are hampered by the fact that dramas also require page-to-stage interpretations, constructed among multiple artistic collaborators, and public receptions of site-specific productions interpreted during each somewhat unique live performance. In particular, Theatre for Young Audiences (TYA) depends upon teachers and parents to bring children to its performance venues. TYA producers must, therefore, select “age-appropriate” texts that appeal not only to intended grade levels, but to adult sensibilities as well—most often choosing popular, familiar titles from the children’s literature canon. To encourage adult attendance further, producers often advertise their plays as “family theatre for all ages,” thereby discounting age-group differences as a means of sidestepping ongoing “age-appropriate” debates. Given these market conditions, how might critics evaluate the artistic success of plays intended for child spectators? As a TYA critic and director, my solution to this quandary has been to compare my directorial intentions with child spectators’ responses. For those literary critics not versed in theatre practices, I propose a similar, two-pronged approach to performance criticism. First, as a means of judging artistic production values, critics may analyze the semiotic elements of a given performance by interpreting how artists manifest a playwright’s text. Second, critics may compare and integrate their interpretations of spectators’ responses that reveal what children understood and recalled. By including children’s aesthetic experiences in the equation of theatrical meaning-making, critics may question and illuminate how and why specific artistic choices encourage respective interpretations best.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".