Performing Arts and Affordances: Moving toward Epistemic Justice through Embodied Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We suggest that performing arts help us to understand how to use embodied experience and agency to resist and transform oppressive social practices and environments. We draw from dance studies, 4E (embodied, embedded, extended, and enactive) cognition, and feminist epistemology to reveal connections between performing arts, embodied knowing, and epistemic and social justice. Epistemic injustice consists in being unduly undermined in one’s capacity as an epistemic agent, including because of inadequate understandings of the social experiences and capacities of marginalized groups. Following a pluralist account of epistemic agency, we argue that oppressive social environments yield differential distributions of affordances to members of oppressed groups, resulting in a differential understanding of what they can do (permission and capacity). Performing arts provide an opportunity to produce new understandings of one’s capacity which empower epistemic agents not to conform to oppressive social norms, thereby producing new understandings of what is allowed and fostering greater epistemic and social justice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".