Bibliographic record
Abstract
ARTSPRAXIS responds to the call for a rich dialogue between all those committed to the arts in educational and community contexts.The journal will include contributions from arts educators, therapists, arts agencies, arts administrators, funding bodies, arts scholars, and community artists from diverse settings.The journal emphasizes critical analysis of the arts in society.ARTSPRAXIS provides a platform for contributors to interrogate why the arts matter and how the arts can be persuasively argued for in a range of domains.The pressing issues which face the arts in society will be deconstructed.Contributors are encouraged to write in a friendly and accessible manner appropriate to a wide readership.Nonetheless, contributions should be informed and scholarly, and must demonstrate the author's knowledge of the material being discussed.Clear compelling arguments are preferred, arguments which are logically and comprehensively supported by the appropriate literature.Authors are encouraged to articulate how their research design best fits the question (s) being examined.Research design includes the full range of quantitative-qualitative methods, including arts-based inquiry; case study, narrative and ethnography; historical and autobiographical; experimental and quasi-experimental analysis; survey and correlation research.Articles which push the boundaries of research design and those which encourage innovative methods of presenting findings are encouraged.Contributions which seek dialogue across the art forms are welcomed.The genesis of ARTSPRAXIS has been informed by the results of a literature search which identified over 60 journals in the arts disciplines but few which facilitated dialogue across and between the arts disciplines.The second issue of ArtsPraxis will reflect on and respond to the issues raised during The NYU Forum on Ethnotheatre and Theatre for Social Justice (2006).This forum is part of an ongoing series NYU is hosting on significant issues that impact on the broad field of educational and applied theatre.Previous forums have been dedicated to teaching artistry (2005) and assessment in arts education (2003).Ethnotheatre references applied theatre presentations powered by authentic human stories.Theatre for Social Justice aims to elevate discourse on diversity and inclusion.The NYU Forum on Ethnotheatre and Theatre for Social Justice will explore how theatre contributes to culture and politics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.363 | 0.969 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".