Regards croisés sur l’héritage et sur les pratiques actuelles du mime au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article aborde la question de l’évolution et de la transmission de l’art du mime au Québec, thèmes qui sont intrinsèquement liés à l’histoire du théâtre montréalais. Sont exposées les différentes voies artistiques québécoises affiliées aux trois grandes écoles françaises du mime (Decroux, Marceau et Lecoq). Le texte s’attarde à faire la distinction entre la technique de Decroux et son esthétique classique, permettant ainsi de décloisonner le regard sur les pratiques du mime contemporain. En effet, certaines compagnies comme Omnibus, avec des approches pluridisciplinaires, ont contribué à créer des œuvres de mime polymorphes tout en gardant en filigrane les principes et la grammaire decrousiens. Les autrices partagent également leur approche pédagogique du mime auprès des aspirants acteurs, en particulier à l’École supérieure du théâtre de l’Université du Québec de Montréal, ainsi que leurs projets artistiques en cours et à venir.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.000 |
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.
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".