Who’s Afraid of Cabaret? A Conversation with Dainty Smith and Golboo Amani
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A conversation with Dainty Smith and Golboo Amani, the curators of PUSH.PULL: Intersections of QTBIPOC Cabaret and Performance Art, a six-month online series of interdisciplinary events examining emergent and intersectional developments in performance art and QTBIPOC cabaret. As the cabaret stage has traditionally held space for queer bodies to negotiate corporeal boundaries, queer performance has historically taken place on the fringes of popular culture. PUSH.PULL questioned what is considered legitimate art and what is seen as entertainment, by highlighting QTBIPOC cabaret performers as artists at the intersections of live stage performance and radical political performativity. This interview sought to address the question: what is capital P performance art afraid of? What delineates ‘fine’ art from ‘low’ art and those who have been kept at arm’s length from contemporary art?
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".