Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project attempts to establish a base for future work in theatre audience research. The project was a survey of audience expectations of, and reactions to theatrical productions. Two specific aspects are examined. These are (1) the relationships between audience expectations and reactions and (2) the effect on audience response of a series of productions. In addition, the data was examined to discover general trends in audience attitudes, in so far as this was possible in so small a group. Three Vancouver productions were chosen for the purpose of the survey. These were the Frederic Wood Theatre production of As You Like It, the Playhouse production of Tango, and the Dorothy Somerset Studio production Inside the Ghost Sonata. Thirty-six participants were divided into three groups of twelve each. Each group was divided by age and sex, half being under twenty-five years of age. This division did not reveal any significant trends. The participants were examined by a series of questionnaires. The first was the General Questionnaire, which assessed each individual's background, outlook and experience of the theatre. The second was the Pre-Production Questionnaire which they completed before each production. Its purpose was to elicit an indication of their expectations. The third was the Post-Production Questionnaire, which concentrated on the participants' response to each production. The relationships between expectations and reactions and the cumulative effect of attendance on response are discussed at length in this paper. After an examination of the data, one important trend appeared. Apparently, the participants assimilate and evaluate theatrical productions according to a rigid and firmly established frame of reference. This does not always coincide with their enjoyment and it seems to inhibit critical and objective response. Future work might discover how prevalent this frame of reference is, its nature and its influence. There is an indication of a relationship between the fulfillment of expectations about a play's type and intention and the subsequent enjoyment and approval of the production. There is also some suggestion that the participants subconsciously interpret the performance to fit their expectations of the play's type and intention. The main cumulative effect of continuous exposure to productions appears to be the maintenance and reinforcement of the pre-established frame of reference. Specific points about audiences and audience response which deserve more extensive study are presented in the Conclusion of this paper. These include questions about the composition of audiences, audience expectations, attitudes to acting, costumes and scenery, and participants' frame of reference and general response to productions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".