Left out of the in: Investigating Accessibility’s Influence on Theatre Audience In-groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well acknowledged that the affective nature of attending theatre offers audience members a sense of community amongst one another (Fischer-Lichte, 2008; Hurley, 2010; Heim, 2020). Gathering together to share time, space, and experience provides theatre audience members an opportunity to be a part of a unique collective for the brief duration of the performance. Given the broadly shared objective and role for attending performance, a psychological in-group is created amongst audience members. These psychological in-groups are established to be an enforcer of perceived safety amongst its members, contributing to understood behavioural expectations, foregrounded trust, and comfort (Morton & Power, 2022). Knowing this, this poster considers nuances to the audience in-group by investigating the ways in which access needs impact how these groups are created. I will examine the limitations to the audience in-group as a result of access needs not being met during the performance. From content warnings to participation expectations to physical access, this poster will explore the creation of psychological in-groups created amongst audiences during theatre performance through a lens of accessibility, perceived safety, and comfort. In doing so, we can consider the ways in which care is established and provided to audience members, what sort of care is being offered, and whose care needs are being prioritized. Works Cited Fischer-Lichte. “Shared Bodies, Shared Spaces: The Bodily Co-Presence of Actors and Spectators.” The Transformative Power of Performance. Routledge, 2008, pp. 38-74. Heim, Caroline. Actors and Audiences: Conversations in the Electric Air. Routledge, 2020. Hurley, Erin. Theatre & Feeling. Macmillan International Higher Education, 2010. Morton, Thomas, and Power, Seamus. "Coming together after standing apart: What predicts felt safety in the post-coronavirus crowd?" Soc Sci Med, vol. 293, 2022, pp. 1-9.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".