Inclusive Design, Audio Description, and Diversity of Theatre Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conventional approach to audio description (AD) uses third-person narrative, factual delivery style, post-planning, and third-party delivery, making it incompatible with inclusive design principles and equitable access to sensory stimuli. This paper discusses Clay & Paper Theatre’s alternative AD approach, involving actors, script writers, musicians and directors. With no previous exposure to inclusive design, the creative team developed the design process: script modification, characters and music integration, and sensory tour presentation. Innovative methodology taught actors and directors to think about accessibility from the start of their creative processes. Actors found the inclusive design process useful in developing a better understanding of character roles. Audience members enjoyed the play through the role of music and its link to the narrative and characterization. Clay & Paper Theatre’s alternative AD approach exemplifies social innovation in inclusive theatre design for blind and low vision (B/LV) audiences, with an emphasis on process and service outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".