MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7123870304 · doi:10.25071/28169344.155

The Importance of Dance Education in Relation to the Need for Connection in a Post-Crisis World

2025· article· W7123870304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victoria Villani

Bibliographic record

VenueYU-WRITE Journal of Graduate Student Research in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceAsideDance educationRelation (database)Movement (music)LiteracyExpression (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dance is the physical expression of what our lives look like – they include a combination of steps, a rhythm of patterns, connections with people and a series of emotions. As educators, we are teaching students how to navigate adolescence and, by extension, how to live in the world. Dancer and religious scholar, Kimerer LaMothe stresses that there “is a dancer in each of us and a dance in everything we do” (LaMothe, 2015, p. 15). There is a crisis in dance education, as evidenced by the diminishing importance of programs in public education systems. This issue is not new, as Shirley Hoad posits how dance in provinces across Canada had been pushed aside and/or lumped together with physical education courses (Hoad, p. 46; 1990). Ann Dils (2007) reflected on a similar issue, questioning why dance was absent from schooling when there was significant evidence that children were better able to express themselves through movement than through traditional literacy instruction (Dils, 2007). Focusing on Hannah Arendt’s (1958a) theory of ‘worldlessness’, tells a cautionary tale of the potential dangers a loss of dance education would bring. This paper will conclude with Maxine Greene’s (1995) Releasing the Imagination and Arendt’s The Crisis in Education (1958b) to pose hope for the future of dance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYU-WRITE Journal of Graduate Student Research in EducationSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207