TRANSLATION BETWEEN ACADEMIC RESEARCH, COMMUNITY AND PRACTICE: A FORUM THEATRE PROCESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 6 February 2008, a deliberative theatre experiment was held at the National Archives of Quebec. Inspired by the democratic virtues of public deliberation but preoccupied with its blind spots, Forum Theatre was used to initiate discussion about the social tensions between the homeless and other dwellers of public space in downtown Montreal. Using Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed, we hoped to emphasize the narratives of the homeless in these neighbourhood forums to engage a variety of stakeholders in a reflexive debate on normative conceptions of public space which tend to reproduce the marginalization of the homeless by reinforcing the denial of recognition they face. Drawing from Michel Callon’s Sociology of Translation (1986) as an analytical model, we argue that our research process was riddled with blind spots as it did not explicitly identify and negotiate its ‘obligatory passage points’. This undermined its co-constructive aims as well as its deconstructive outcomes.
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 | 0.120 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".