Choreographing eyes in Ukrainian staged folk dance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dancers use their eyes very differently in participatory contexts, as opposed to performances on proscenium stages. In an earlier publication I demonstrated that, during social dances, eyes are very often unfocussed or used casually as in regular interactions. In staged folk dance, the participants are often instructed to sustain strong eye contact with each other (an intra-diegetic gaze), which is used in part to reinforce the illusion of the dance’s imputed setting “there and then” (often in an idealized traditional village in the past), and to help the audience to follow them in their imagination. A second dominant gaze strategy is extra-diegetic (making eye contact beyond the proscenium with the spectators). This option emphasizes the “here and now” of the shared performance event. In this article I extend that exploration and introduce complexity, to focus on how Ukrainian staged folk dance choreographers, Pavlo Virsky and Vasile Avramenko, have manipulated these two dominant and contrasting options differently in their compositions. Standards for intra- and extra-diegetic use of eyes have changed over time in Ukrainian dance. I introduce suggestions on how the cultural and political environments influence choreographers’ decisions on gaze.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".