Bibliographic record
Abstract
When one is faced with the challenge of creating a new work, one is immediately presented with the question “Why?” Once this deceptively simple question is answered one is presented with another question, “How?” But before the “how,” the first question must be answered. One answer may be “The material speaks to me.” But what is it that it speaks to? Is it one’s political beliefs, one’s sense of theatricality, one’s need to place one’s dreams on stage or perhaps the urge to create a piece of art? These answers are natural but only touch the surface. They are the answers of the ego. To really answer our “why” question, we must go deeper than ourselves. We must go beyond ourselves to include not only our actors and technicians but our audience too. Theatre, after all, is the communication of actor to audience—story, storyteller, hearer. So, as we go deeper in our questioning, we might then ask ourselves not “What must I show to the audience?” but “What is it in this story, play or creation that will touch a deep-seated need in the hearers?” For the actor/storyteller, his/her question is: “How can I give of this story and of myself?” If the teller does not give freely of him/herself, then there is only an empty shell. And if we take only the first or egotistical level of questioning we end up looking for security and no creation will take place. There must be an element of risk. This is true for directors as well as actors, any artist for that matter. These were some of the questions I had when we began work on La Storia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 0.063 |
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".