Dramaturging Encounter in Disability Documentary: Hybrid Dramaturgies in <i>RARE</i> and <i>Wildfire</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qu’est-ce que le théâtre documentaire peut apprendre des études du handicap ? Dans cet article, Lisa Aikman explique comment l’usage que fait le théâtre documentaire des signifiants du réel et des rencontres avec des personnes marginalisées risque de créer un autre récit de la différence innée, ce que les études contemporaines sur le handicap cherchent justement à remettre en question. Aikman fait valoir que le théâtre postdramatique du réel et les dramaturgies hybrides qui brouillent les frontières entre le réel et le fictif sont mieux équipés pour repousser les limites du réel et interroger les notions de différence perçue. Par une analyse comparative de RARE et Wildfire, deux pièces documentaires créées par Judith Thompson et une troupe d’interprètes ayant une trisomie 21, Aikman montre comment la dramaturgie postdramatique qui caractérise Wildfire permet de mettre en scène une négociation plus complexe de l’identité et de la proximité qui reflète le discours actuel sur le handicap en tant qu’identité de groupe fluide.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".