Drama in Education: Deconstructing the Role of Movement in Text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative textual analysis on the role of movement in 3 texts in Drama in Education in Canada. As the subject is holistic and encourages creative, active participation, movement was expected to appear, even inadvertently, in both theory and practice. It was hoped that guidelines for the use of movement within Drama in Education would emerge from the texts and that these guidelines would serve as models for others to use. A total of 26 Drama in Education experts in Canada were each asked to list the 10 most important texts in the field. Those who answered were assigned numbers and charted according to age, gender, and geography. An objective colleague helped narrow the group to 16 participants. A frequency count was used, assigning 10 points to the first text on each list, and descending to 1 point for the tenth text listed. Based on the highest number of points calculated, the 5 most frequently used texts were identified. These were compared to ascertain the widest representation ofthe authors ' geographic location and gender, as well as differences in theory and practice. The final selection included 3 texts that
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".