MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111607050 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v8i3.507

(Re)Discovering Story and Voice: The Adaptive Community Theatre Project

2019· article· en· W3111607050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Brendel Horn, Belinda C. Boyd, Megan Shero

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeurotypicalNeurocognitiveTest (biology)Applied psychologyCognitionAutism spectrum disorderAutismDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207