RelationCRIPs with Dramaturgy: The Intervention of the Dramaturge in Devised CRIP Theatre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability theatre has a complex Canadian history according to disability studies scholar Kirsty Johnson, and “Canadian artists with disabilities have found many and provocative ways to ‘get on stage’” (Johnson 4). The formation of disability art and theatre is as multifaceted and diverse as disability itself, but there will always remain a part of the process that must confront the ableism and exclusion perpetuated by the social models of oppression both on and offstage. As disability theatre seeks to challenge dominant narratives, relocate the status of the disabled body, and positively re-imagine the value of disability, one of the important components is the role that dramaturgy can play in the formation of disability theatre, particularly in the case of devised CRIP theatre. This paper will explore some of the interventions and approaches dramaturgy may subsume to support the creation of experiential theatre that expresses the lives and narratives of disabled and mixed communities. The arguments explored in this paper will be supplemented with material taken from the collaborative production of Love in the Margins that was part of the 2016 Chinook Series in Edmonton, Alberta, becoming the first professional presentation of disability theatre in Edmonton. This paper will also explore topics such as the role of playwriting and dramaturgy in devised, experiential, and social-justice theatre, how the word “professional” can be inclusively re-defined, and the problems, processes, and ethical questions of journeying from devised community theatre to professional theatre.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".