Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dramatic acting, as a theatrical event that mysteriously fuses actor with character, is also a process that is deeply invested in the idea of Self. From Diderot’s early paradox through Stanislavski’s highly influential psychotechnique and into the present day, notions of who actors are – and how they precisely feel – when portraying characters have remained at the centre of Euroamerican discussions about dramatic performance. Conversely, for most of the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, the concept of the Self as an organic, reflexive, self-directed and differentiated human being in the world has been not only “deconstructed” within every dominant critical and artistic discourse but has also – until recently – been pretty much left for dead. Yet within the realm of acting in the traditional theatre’s models, the tenacity of the Self’s hold as the centrepiece of both pedagogy and methodology appears to be the hallmark of a concept that, if somewhat bruised and battered, is still very much alive. Is there something inherent – or at least necessary – within the study and practice of dramatic acting that perpetually reconstitutes the stubborn idea of an autonomous and cohesive subjectivity within the actor? Through a freewheeling, and sometimes unorthodox, methodology of interrogation, this dissertation asserts that, for the modern dramatic actor, a demonstrable sense of self is an inescapable vocational reality. This position is argumentatively framed through a valorization of the actor’s phenomenological and psychological experience as fundamental to assessing how the Actor and the Self creatively collide. Though drawing from a broad range of interdisciplinary discourses, the author’s subjective and self-historicizing experience as someone who has worked as a professional actor in the Canadian theatre and other media since childhood, for over forty years, is everywhere implicit in this analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".