MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194452944 · doi:10.1386/atr_00048_1

Research-based theatre across disciplines: A relational approach to inquiry

2021· article· en· W3194452944 on OpenAlex
Tetsuro Shigematsu, Chris Cook, George Belliveau, Graham W. Lea

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Theatre Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehearsingField (mathematics)Embodied cognitionSociologyComputer scienceVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research-based theatre (RbT) is an innovative research methodology that draws on theatre practices and conventions to engage in and share research. It is an inherently collaborative and relational methodology, inviting research participants, artists and researchers to take part in embodied data generation, analysis and knowledge-exchange activities. This methodology encompasses writing, rehearsing and performing a research-based monologue, scene or play. In this article, the authors share three recent examples from interdisciplinary projects where researchers and artists engaged with different communities to dramatize data using an RbT methodological approach. To add to literature in the field, the authors consider their experiences leading RbT projects in three disparate fields: theatrical, social and therapeutic. The authors explore the question of how RbT transforms relationships and how relationships transform RbT.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.161 · 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