Shakespeare's "Dramatic Style" at the Curtain: A Collaborative Model for Site-Responsive Practice-as-Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article advances a site-responsive Practice-as-Research (PaR) methodology that draws contested approaches to Shakespeare's "style" into productive conversation through collaborative research. Treating "dramatic style" as the reciprocal relationship between textual aesthetics (what a play-text contains) and performance utility (how it activates in specific spaces), this model is applied to Shakespeare's play-texts at the Curtain Playhouse. A case study of Q1 & Q2 Romeo and Juliet suggests a series of site-responsive adaptations at the Curtain: Q2's expanded combat sequences exploit the playhouse's wider stage; staggered entrances negotiate its shallow depth; and repeated auditory cues engage playgoers across the site's fluid yard spaces. Virtual workshops encouraged international collaboration between textual scholars, performance practitioners, and archaeologists, generating "liquid knowledge" (Nelson 60) and offering a replicable framework for collaborative PaR studies at a diversity of newly excavated performance sites.
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 | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".