Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Canadian culture continues to grow an obsession with individualism in the era of the selfie, theatre has similarly found a new focus in shifting the spotlight from the stage to the audience. The result of such interests is participatory theatre, which reimagines the audience as players in a shared experience. In an evolving form of performance, audience members abandon the darkened theatre seats and the comfort of passivity in favour of agency. While thrilling, this radical shift in perspective is often accompanied by intense feelings of fear and insecurity. How can anyone be a “good” participant without knowing what to do? What if something goes wrong? To combat apprehension in would-be players, a new role has begun to appear in contemporary participatory theatre: the guide. Existing both in the reality of the performance and the world of the audience, the guide provides a safe space for participation. This role establishes the rules, and eases discomfort when necessary to ensure players can confidently contribute. By applying dramatic theory to a series of case studies, this presentation will highlight where the guide appears in contemporary Canadian theatre, and the critical function it plays in each performance’s success. Not only does it ensure that audience members embrace the attitude of a player, it allows the participant to feel comfortable enough to reflect on the purpose of their newfound activity. Ultimately, the guide will prevent the average theatregoer from dreading participation by facilitating meaningful play that is equal parts entertaining and aesthetically satisfying.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".