Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of devised theatre lies in its relationship to the unexpected. In all forms of theatre, even the most structured, words like “risk,” “experiment” and “challenge” are used frequently, but often without considering fully the openness to both true instability and true failure that these words imply. Most theatre is created in rooms in which relationships are rigidly defined: relationship to the text, relationship to the director, relationship between actors, and all the hierarchies and protocols that have grown up around the professional theatre. This need for a template is understandable and perhaps necessary to a form of theatre in which rehearsal periods are limited and relationships between collaborators are often temporary. The template is also insurance against failure. This is not to say that plays do not fail; they often do. However, a template protects the participants against the sense of failure possible when they are in the state of total uncertainty that defines the genuine experiment. Because of the template, they are assured of their relationships to the work and to each other. The end result may be a failure, but the participants still know the steps that will get them to the end, even before the work begins. At its best, traditionally hierarchical theatre gives the practitioners and the audience a well-known and often well-loved form of storytelling. By the same token, it can be boring to create and to watch because, fundamentally, both audience and participants already know the end of the story in form, if not in content.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".