Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we consider the relationship between education and applied theatre, the growth of applied theatre curricula within Canada, the issues that presently we identify as ‘productive tensions,’ and political and social concerns that now frame the ways in which we shape and conduct our practice. Our thoughts and suggestions, while limited by those constraints we offered above, may serve to open a space for discussion on what is and what might be. In our view—looking back over two decades of development in the field of applied theatre programs in Canada—there are a number of tensions that have come into clearer focus as applied theatre has been finding its feet. We see these tensions as productive and offer them not as criticisms but as opportunities to reconsider methodologies in light of a post-dramatic world. Applied theatre programs tend to operate in theatre departments that mostly focus on training for independent careers in text-based mainstream theatre. Such an intention may make it difficult for some who see theatre as a path to careers different from performance and/or production. Certainly, the recent addition of applied theatre to university curricula has revealed some interesting pressures. The division between the hierarchical traditions of theatremaking, with the top-down approach of director-designer-actor-audience, may be beginning to shift with the advent of new thinking. The ways of working that are integral approaches to applied theatremaking require a broader interdisciplinarity of courses than those traditionally offered in departments of 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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".