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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I have always been interested in the context and experience of theatre audiences and, in my book on this topic, outlined a range of activities and knowledges that formed what I called, following reception theory, an “horizon of expectations” that spectators necessarily brought to the theatre. My argument there suggested that this horizon of expectations, held both individually and collectively, would be affirmed, revised, disavowed and so on, in light of the performance the audience saw in the theatre. While the density of the spectator’s experience was, of course, during the actual performance, an interactive engagement with the onstage world in the act of meaning making, I suggested that the idea of the theatrical event extended far beyond the specifics of the play. It seems useful now to think about how this preliminary theorizing about the theatre audience applies, or not, to an expanded context of theatricality in the world. Certainly, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, there are audiences for a much broader performance environment than the play produced in a building identified as a theatre. In the period since Theatre Audiences was first published (1990) and, indeed, particularly since its second and revised edition (1997), more and more people have come to experience performance outside of conventional theatre spaces.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it