MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385498195 · doi:10.7202/1102396ar

Researching Spontaneous Doing: Random Dance as Decolonial Praxis in Dancing Grandmothers

2023· article· en· W4385498195 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePerformance Matters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceEmbodied cognitionPraxisAestheticsVisual artsChoreographySociologyNarrativePsychologyArtLiteratureEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How are “hunch” and “intuition” passed on, and what kinds of knowledge are they? This essay examines Dancing Grandmothers (2011), a contemporary dance piece by Eun-me Ahn Dance Company, to study the piece’s production and transmission of embodied knowledge. The work’s dramaturgy of imperfection foregrounds makchum (random dance) as an important site of knowledge. The raw aesthetic of makchum revives the connection with the physical unconscious by decolonizing cognitive and embodied knowledge. I borrow from Ben Spatz’s epistemology of embodiment to analyze the “amateur” dance portion of Dancing Grandmothers, a section of the work that goes on stage without a rehearsal, and its invitation for the audience members to respond in embodied listening. Dancing Grandmothers is a form of decolonizing from within, where knowledge shifts mainly through remapping the perceptual rhetoric. It attempts to let the bodies speak for themselves, in equal authority with the dancers who co-create the piece. On top of contributing to a cognitive turn, the joy of dancing central to the performance conveys that animation, vitality, and revival are essential parts of knowledge, generating new energies by stimulating the senses.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerformance MattersSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207