Bibliographic record
Abstract
<JATS1:p>This book explores and critiques the concept of participation in applied theatre both theoretically and practically.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>Participation is one of the concepts central to applied theatre practice, but it’s mostly considered when engaging with communities in applied theatre, while the term itself is under-theorized in applied theatre discourses. This study examines and unpacks participation as a tool to foster community engagement and decolonize research and knowledge production in applied theatre practice, especially regarding representation, equity and access.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>What does participation even mean? What are the new and existing paradigms and frameworks in participation discourses? How do these frameworks impact participation from ethical, sociocultural, economic and aesthetic perspectives? And in what ways can applied theatre practitioners re-conceptualize and re-position participation meaningfully in their work? Through case studies drawn from a diverse range of places including Kenya, Brazil and Canada, this book presents discourses on and experiences of participation for the purpose of repositioning it.</JATS1:p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".