Dramaturging Research, Shaping Encounters: Working Methods and Dramaturgical Structures in Contemporary Canadian Documentary Theatre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines documentary theatre as a genre that models ways of interacting with “strangers” and interrogates what ethics of encounter are being modeled for spectators in contemporary Canadian documentary theatre. It builds on extant studies that examine documentary plays as finished products (i.e., Martin, Tomlin), extending the line of inquiry to examine the range of working methods employed in researching, writing, and rehearsing documentary theatre. Connecting process with product allows this dissertation to connect dramaturgy as a verb (the act of crafting a play) with dramaturgy as a noun (the “aesthetic architecture” of the script) (Chemers 3). It also allows me to analyse these plays as examples of “strange encounters” such as those detailed by Sara Ahmed. In Strange Encounters, Ahmed outlines how, to avoid stranger fetishism that locates strangeness in the body of the other, one must focus on the mechanisms that govern one’s encounter with this potential stranger. By turning my attention to the plays’ dramaturgy, rather than their supposed “authenticity”, this dissertation examines the rehearsal hall and the theatre as mechanisms that govern our encounters with the potentially “strange” subjects of documentary theatre. This study examines four case study companies, Rare Theatre, Human Cargo, Project: Humanity, and Porte Parole. Each company was selected for their mandates to produce documentary work, the popularity of their recent works, and their emergent commitments to mentorship, workshops, and company expansion. Personal interviews with playwrights, dramaturgs and directors illuminate these companies’ working models while dramaturgical analyses of these companies’ plays examine how the dramaturgy “casts” the audience in relation to the research subject. Analysis also explores how familiar theatrical conventions or tropes, such as the journey narrative or confessional direct address, shape what kind of encounter the spectator is encouraged to have with the documentary research subject or, at times, with the researcher/playwright.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".