Ten years after : a qualitative study of students' experiences in a high school theatre company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored 4 former students' perceptions of the learning \nassociated with their involvement in a high school theatre program and the contextual \nfactors they linked to their perceived development. The study involved 4 adult \nparticipants, 2 male and 2 female, who had participated extensively in a high school \ntheatre company from 1996 to 2001 when they were students in a large Ontario school \nboard. Data were collected from January to August, 2007, when the 4 former students \ntook part in two in-depth, open-ended interviews. The focus of investigation was \nparticipant perspectives. \nData analysis revealed that the 4 participants' involvement in high school theatre \nproduced both wide-ranging and enduring developmental benefits across personal, social, \nand cognitive domains. Participants achieved these benefits through interactions among 3 \nrelated contexts: (a) rehearsal and performance practices, (b) the world of the play, and \n(c) characteristics of the high school theatre company.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".