MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401173096 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v70i2.79384

Playbuilding as Arts-Based Research Health, Wellness, Social Justice and Higher Education (2nd ed., 2024) by Joe Norris, Kevin Hobbs, & Mirror Theatre

2024· article· en· W4401173096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathryn Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial justiceThe artsSociologyEconomic JusticePsychologyVisual artsCriminologyPedagogyMedia studiesArtPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kevin Hobbs, whose research examines the pedagogical possibilities of improvisation and role-play in the fields of health and medicine.Hobbs and Norris also name the Mirror Theatre company, as a third and final authorship attribution.Mirror Theatre was originally developed by Norris at The University of Alberta.The program was later reimagined at Brock University in Ontario when Norris moved academic positions.Mirror Theatre-its methods, social issue productions, participants and audiences and evolution-is the source material for this productive investigation of playbuilding as a qualitative, arts-based research method.I come to my review of this text with knowledge of Norris's methods.As a US academic, I use Norris's first edition, Playbuilding as Qualitative Research, in my own graduate-level research methods course.I find the original text to be an effective, cogent way to introduce nascent graduate student researchers to theatrical devising as participatory action research.My MFA students have cited and used Norris's explication of playbuilding as theoretical and practical grounding for their theatre for social change devising practice with youth and communities.With this history in hand, I am pleased to report that Playbuilding as Arts-Based Research offers a purposeful improvement to the original source material.The numerous second edition shiftsupdates to the theoretical methodology, an explicitly curated typology of the five research dimensions engaged through playbuilding, timely inclusion of digital methods and archival examples, expanded script source material, additional insights from scholars working with similar methods, and a brief section on program impact-are excellent.Norris et al.'s new text gives students, teaching artists, academics, and researchers working across the fields of health, social work, education, and the arts a more substantive grounding in the theory and practice of

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.011

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207