(Re)Discovering Story and Voice: The Adaptive Community Theatre Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Adaptive Community Theatre Project (ACTP) at the University of Central Florida (UCF) served to honor the voices and stories of community members with aphasia and other acquired neurocognitive disabilities, while combatting the isolation and depression often felt by this demographic. This paper will explore the ways in which the pilot year programming of ACTP evolved over time, due in part to the primary author’s perceived disinterest of the neuroatypical participants. Though initially the neuroatypical participants expressed interest in the project, erratic rehearsal attendance, transportation issues, cognitive fatigue, and stage fright presented challenges for the participants and created obstacles to the theatre process. This led to multiple modifications, including shifting from an ensemble-based mixed-ability devising model to an ethnographic model, and shifting from a full performance to a staged reading and community discussion. This paper offers an overview of the ACTP and the challenges that led to multiple structural revisions throughout the development of the project. Written from the perspective of the ACTP artistic director, a reflection and analysis on the project’s pilot year concludes with a proposed model for successful community-based theatre work with participants with acquired neurocognitive disabilities and neurotypical volunteers. This paper asks: What are the best practices for creating theatre with/for participants with neurological/neurocognitive deficits? What tensions in objectives, communication, and access arise when a team of neurotypical individuals creates artistic and extracurricular programing for neuroatypical individuals? And how can neurotypical theatre-makers interested in accessibility and inclusion adapt their approach to rise to the challenges presented by these tensions?
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".