MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TETIANA BOROVYK’S STAGE PERFORMANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF UKRAINIAN BALLET IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE 20TH AND THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY

2018· article· en· W2891791610 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liudmyla Vyshotravka

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture and art in the modern world · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalletOperaStyle (visual arts)ArtContext (archaeology)EleganceLyricismVisual artsQuarter (Canadian coin)PoetryArt historyLiteratureDanceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the article is to analyze T. Borovyk’s creative work and define the main stages of her creative path on the stage of Taras Shevchenko National Opera and Ballet Theater of Ukraine (now the National Opera of Ukraine); to identify the characteristic features of the performing style of the ballerina. The research methodology consisted in the use of the following culturological methods of research: general-historical, comparative-historical, analytical, biographical, etc. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the publication of art critical analysis of T.Borovyk’s creative heritage from the standpoint of modern ballet studies. Conclusions. T.Borovyk’s ballet repertoire consisted of more than 20 ballet parties, as well as numerous concert numbers staged by national (V. Kovtun, A. Shekera, H. Maiorov, V. Fedotov) and foreign (D. Balanchin, R. Petit, O. Ratmansky, O. Vinogradov , E. Frey) choreographers. Among the characteristic features of T.Borovyk’s performing style were technical virtuosity (lightness in performing jumps and swiftness of rotations), elegance of lines in poses and arabesques, as well as bright acting expression. The fine manner of the ballerina was distinguished by the penetrating lyricism and deep understanding of dramatic acting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture and art in the modern worldSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207