Do Edinburgh students go to the theatre and participate in audiences? A qualiquantitative analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theatre in Edinburgh is a very important part of the cultural landscape of the city. As one of the cultural hubs in the world – hosting the world-famous Edinburgh Fringe Festival every August – Edinburgh has a large history with the theatrical arts. The city is also home to a large number of theatres that cover a spectrum of differences, including large receiving houses; producing houses; and smaller regional theatres, to name a few. However, theatre is also seen as a pass time for older members of society. Edinburgh also has a rich history in academia, producing breakthrough discoveries and playing host to 4 Higher Education institutions in addition to other Further Education institutions. This study looks to explore and answer the question “Do Edinburgh’s Student Population Go to View Theatre in Traditional Theatre Buildings?”. This question will be answered qualitative, quantitative and quali-quantitative methods in order to gain the most rounded collection of data to gain the most in-depth answer for the extent Edinburgh’s students participate in theatre audiences. The methods used are an online survey; a group discussion; and an interview with a former Box Office supervisor at the Lyceum. The study found that the group sampled did go to the theatre and engaged because they wanted to go and see live performances – typically avoiding live streamed performances or recorded performances for cinema viewing. The study also found that there were barriers for students who wanted to engage with theatrical productions, particularly to do with pricing and student related deals – with students citing that they would need to gamble and try to get a last minute ticket on the day. The data also shows that any potential ticket deals lack the advertisement to gain the maximum use from the student population.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".