Performing Our World of Mass Consumption: "What’s for Dinner?" a Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The play which I have written titled What’s for Dinner? is a piece which critiques the consequences of mass consumption in our world today. The growing issue of “affluenza”, the inspiration for this work, has become increasingly prominent in western society. The play deals with two characters that represent the first-world society, living a fast-paced consumer-based lifestyle. These greedy, exaggerated characters have invited a guest for dinner - a character representing humanity and innocence, and acting as the normative element in the abstract piece. After the early courses of an outrageous dinner party, she discovers that she is the main course. The dinner party employs the motif of the days of creation according to the Bible while manipulating the story to represent the first world society and their interpretation of creation. The two “upper class” characters describe the intricacies of the process whereby they have created their luxurious house and their extravagant life together. This leads them to engross themselves in the abnormal, but vital culinary courses. The five courses leading up to the main course,- represent the stages in which people have been thrust into a consumerist lifestyle. Each meal is a progression to the ultimate deterioration of our world and the innocence of mankind. The objective or spine of this play is to exaggerate society’s mass consumption in hopes of preventing our impending self-destruction. This speaks to the issue of sustainability in our world. We have the ability to make social change, but are too obsessed with the appeal of gain. I will present these ideas in a short talk, supplemented by a short reading of the most vital moment in the play. This combination of spoken presentation with dramatic enactment is an effective way to promote theatre as an outlet for these important ideas and emphasize the potential impact of drama for social change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".