MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943501058 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.11750

The Magic Circle: An Exploration in Immersive Theatre

2018· article· en· W2943501058 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amanda Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMAGIC (telescope)MetaphorCuriosityVisual artsAestheticsSpace (punctuation)ArtSociologyMedia studiesComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When discussing theatre, most people will imagine a traditional audience-actor relationship, likely in a proscenium setting; the actors on stage inhabit the world of the story while audience members remain passive bystanders. Immersive theatre challenges this convention by bringing the audience into the world of the story. Comparable to being immersed in water, the audience members are fully submerged in this new world; senses are engaged and heightened, and curiosity is peaked. The audience becomes a part of the story world alongside the actors as the border between the real and the fictional becomes blurred. In the world of games and digital media, this border is known as the “magic circle”, a space with unique rules and values separate from day-to-day reality. Though this metaphor was created to describe a game space, it can be argued that audience members in immersive theatre performances have become “players” themselves. In this project, I explore the “play” aspect of immersive theatre, with a particular focus in the area of pervasive gaming. This project includes research from a variety of theatre practitioners, theorists, and game designers including Janet Murray, Josephine Machon, Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. Inspired by that research, I am creating a pervasive game designed to be played in and around the city of Kingston. The goal of this project is to further understand the ways in which theatre and gaming are intrinsically linked while experimenting with form and pushing the boundaries of the magic circle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207