The Construction of Authenticity in the Creative Process: Lessons from Choreographers of Contemporary Dance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on authenticity of cultural production has systematically examined the perceived authenticity of both the producer and the cultural product but not of the creative process. This study aims to address this lacuna, adopting Carroll and Wheaton’s typology of type and moral authenticity to examine how contemporary dance choreographers construct authenticity during the creation of a new choreography. Our analysis of data from 23 contemporary dance companies reveals that the two meanings of authenticity dynamically reconstitute one another in the creative process. First, choreographers construct moral authenticity through transformation of form, deconstructing established artistic dance forms and introducing new movements from a bricolage of techniques. Second, they construct type authenticity through wrapping expression, facilitating the deconstruction of the values attached to the bricolage of techniques into artistic dance aesthetics. Finally, choreographers evoke both moral and type authenticity through a creative process of reconstruction. Our noteworthy finding reveals how the construction of authenticity in the process of creating a new choreography, and the dynamics between the two meanings of authenticity, serve significantly as a means of communication among the involved actors, thereby enabling the creative process.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".