Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the exciting things about creating performance based on two different artistic traditions is imagining what that hybrid/pastiche/blend or new form will look like. Another is imagining how the audience will expect to read the new performance hybrid. Circus and theatre practitioners approach the audience-to-performer relationship differently, and therein lies a tension that significantly influences the way that aerial theatre is created and received. Aerial theatre is a dramatic presentation, in which the trapeze, hoops, silks or ropes are central to the execution and telling of a story. This form of theatre is neither “traditional text-based drama” nor thrilling choreographed stunts but exists in the space between the two cultures of circus and theatre. In terms of “liveness,” aerial theatre practitioners create performances that teeter precariously or balance perfectly between the creation methods and priorities of each discipline and the audience’s expectations of either circus or theatre. Since 2000, Edmonton-based Firefly Theatre has been struggling with ways to forge a creation process that balances between the worlds of theatre and circus, honours the strengths of each discipline, capitalizes on the audience’s relationship to the living performers onstage and produces work that is neither circus nor theatre but an exciting example of something in-between. By viewing the two “parent” disciplines as separate cultures, we can identify some of the sources of Firefly’s struggles and the ways their solutions thus far have mitigated or increased the tensions of working in this in-between space.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".