Acting crazy : psychotherapy, dramatherapy, and drama? Autoethnographic play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychotherapy, acting, and drama therapy have traditionally existed as separate knowledge silos in the research cannon, although many interrelations exist between them. This research examines those interrelations through the researcher’s perspectives of being involved in all three as an actor/director, acting teacher/coach/facilitator, and an aspiring psychotherapist, using an autoethnographic stage play to tease out the general themes. The general themes that surfaced centered on the importance of desire, and its relationship to the will and self; how desire constructs meaning through language; psychology’s ambivalence with sexuality; the relevance of communitas and environment to learning; the pitfalls of therapy and drama; awareness; the self as an ultimate defence and survival mechanism; veneers and actualization as power grabs by the self; real caring versus professional caring; reality versus fantasy; rationality versus emotionalism; science/knowledge/mind versus art/faith/body; drama as therapy, and therapy as drama. The conclusion of this research examines a host of topics too: how these domains’ nomenclature is problematic; how the researcher’s self interacts in these three embedded environments; the potential interpersonal, social, and cultural impacts on participating in these programmes; the significance, strengths, and limitations of this research; the potential applications of its findings; and, future directions that are possible for further research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".