MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874649 · doi:10.3138/ctr.138.017

Creating Artful Dialogues: David Diamond’s <i>Theatre for Living</i>

2009· article· en· W4380874649 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Emily A. Rollie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemoirStorytellingTheatre studiesPostmodern theatrePolitical theatreTheatre directorArtDramaNarrativeVisual artsSociologyAestheticsLiteraturePostmodernism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Written by David Diamond, artistic director of Vancouver-based Headlines Theatre, Theatre for Living articulates Diamond’s philosophy of creating community-based, forum theatre. Influenced significantly by Theatre of the Oppressed pioneer Augusto Boal, Diamond recognizes the need to develop the language of Theatre of the Oppressed beyond the strict designations of “oppressor” and “oppressed.” Acknowledging the diversity of the communities in which he works, Diamond combines systems theory and theatre as a way to “understand [his] own evolving work better” and to “stimulate discussion about the central role that storytelling and art play in creating and living in healthy communities” (23). Part resource book, part memoir and part theoretical exploration, Theatre for Living eloquently articulates Diamond’s modification of Boal’s techniques and contributes both to the scholarly and the practical development of Theatre of the Oppressed. Through straightforward writing and illustrative examples, Diamond’s text offers theatre scholars and practitioners, or anyone interested in theatre’s potential for social change, a new perspective on Boal-based techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207