Imelda’s Dreaming: Applied Theatre in Mobilizing Political Discourse in Filipino Canadian Diasporic Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay charts the practice of applied theatre that traverses transnationality.It demonstrates methodological intervention in creating diasporicperformances by engaging open and emancipative dialogical encounters usingapplied theatre. The author deploys community- based theatre performanceto activate political discourse for/with/among diasporic community members.Using autoethnographic and affective inquiry, this article instigates theatreas a process of artistic improvisation that animates historical persona,found space, and other theatrical elements to provoke political discontent anddispleasure. The article raises several questions: How do we expand the performancepraxis of community theatre and performance making for FilipinoCanadian communities beyond exotic representation of culture of Philippineheritage? How can creativity and criticality be interwoven into performancemaking? How may applied theatre become a relevant performance praxis ofcommunity formation in a politically-divided diasporic community in Canada?By using autoethnography and performance ethnography, the essay scaffoldsa praxis of community-based performance creation through the techniques ofapplied theatre as configured for diasporic communities, themes, and politicalpredispositions. It constitutes the use of ethnography as self-reflexive modeof ethical intervention in performance re-roots itself from vernacular vocabularyof relational collaboration in community building to decolonize the praxisof applied theatre. Gesturing towards these Indigenous relational Philippineconcepts as frameworks in applying theatre for diasporic performance creation,the paper argues that Filipino diasporic performance has the power tocreate a space for political discourse for/with/among diasporic communitymembers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".