Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Extending Voice Work” documents a 2018 transdisciplinary research project (with an actor, director, musician, and philosopher), which explored the rehearsal space as feminist praxis and culminated in a production of the one-woman show Sabina’s Splendid Brain, by Canadian playwright Carol Sinclair. The rehearsal process included an extended or expanded voice workshop by Fides Krucker. The article traces a first-person, first-time experience of undergoing a voice workshop. It draws on a thick description of this experience to argue that voice work revolutionizes an understanding of key feminist philosophies of embodiment. In allowing a person to unearth and tangibly connect to preverbal bodily memories, voice work enables an experience of aspects of these feminist theories in practice. However, the article claims voice work also illuminates the limitations of these feminist concepts in their overall theorization of embodiment and the voice. An attentiveness to the practice of voice work demonstrates the inadequacy and undesirability of any one or any final theorization of embodiment. Instead, the article claims, voice work opens up a space for an ongoing rethinking of the intertwining of meaning and embodiment. It concludes that voice work can be a practice that allows us to connect with, write, resist, and rewrite the ever-emerging stories of our own, always embodied experience.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".