The <i>Housing Project</i>: Working Collaboratively with Adolescents in Theatre and Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB) Theatre in Education Co-op was first introduced to the former Toronto Board nineteen years ago by Kathy Lundy, who was then an instructional leader for Dramatic Arts.1 The mandate of the program is for students to work with a director from February until June to create collectively a thirty- to forty-five-minute play that will tour approximately thirty TDSB middle schools. Typically, the play addresses a social issue that is relevant to a middle school audience. Students meet at a designated rehearsal space from nine until four daily. Theatre Co-op is designed as a work placement opportunity and participants earn four Co-operative Education credits through their home schools.2 The program runs alongside a two-credit theatre program that became a dance program in 2007. The director does not grade the students but provides ongoing feedback and performance evaluations for their teachers. Each student must audition and interview to be accepted into the program, and it is open to every student who is eligible for Co-op in the TDSB. This is my fourth year serving as Artistic Director for the program and what follows is an account of the program and process, with specific references to the 2007 piece, The Housing Project.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".