MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127529415 · doi:10.7202/018834ar

Folk Dance Revival Strategies

2008· article· en· W2127529415 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andriy Nahachewsky

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceTerminologyGovernment (linguistics)Conceptual frameworkSociologyFolk danceAestheticsPsychologyVisual artsArtLinguisticsSocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethnochoreologists are now more open to the study of folk dance revival groups, though they still lack common terminology or conceptual frameworks. Based upon the motivations and priorities of their participants, dance groups can be identified as “Enjoyers,” “Preservers,” “Presenters,” “Creators,” or perhaps “All-stars.” Several examples show how each of these strategies may impact on the organizational structures, dance forms and other aspects of the groups’ activities. These conceptual categories are presented with the suggestion that they may be useful for researchers, government policymakers, and dance group leaders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207