Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerging popularity of participatory theatre encourages audiences to immerse their senses in the art form. My research aimed to analyze how artists can make their participatory performances psychologically accessible without compromising their creative intentions. The awareness surrounding mental health and psychological safety has grown alongside audiences' and artists' desire to engage with art intimately; thus, artists are encouraged to find a creative way to implement safeguards. My research began with conducting interviews with mental health professionals and studying texts on psychology. Understanding how emotions are constructed allowed me to explore how an individual's relationship with danger can fluctuate between feelings of exhilaration or the fear of harm. I analyzed Antonin Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty theory and defined the emerging theory of Theatre of Care. I investigated where the danger lies within these theories and how audience emotions can be exploited for the sake of immersion. To provide examples, I conducted case studies of various participatory performances I have attended and researched to illustrate successful applications of audience safety and potential dangers. Finally, I highlighted dramaturgical elements to incorporate psychological safeguards in participatory performance. My results suggest that individuals construct their emotions from past experiences. Theatre of Cruelty and Theatre of Care theories represent how, although marketed as different audience experiences, they possess many opportunities for triggering psychological harm due to the immersive representation of reality. Consequently, artists must implement psychological safeguards, both dramaturgically integrated into the performance and externally available, to reduce the likelihood of psychological harm and trauma.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".