Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dialogic and conversational work reflects on artistic method of two artists who share migratory and diasporic experiences. The authors met and became collaborators on two transnational dance projects (Field I and Colonial) scafolded within their conversation the logic, ethic, and politics of transnational collaboration by engaging in a dialogic exchange. In this conversation both authors generate self-reflexive discourse on the ethics and aesthetics of transnational co-creation of dance and theatre projects that connect Canada and the Philippines. By looking at art making and circulation as modes of intervening in and reworking the world, the authors render possible aparatus of an ethical collaboration between artists of varying migratory subjectivities. In this article, both artists reflect on the implications of cultural appropriations, capitalism, and colonialism in contemporary performance ecologies in Canada and the Philippines. As artists who have extended histories of education, theatrical practice, community engagement and living in British Columbia, this article offers the following dialogue as critical intervention in decolonizing performance based theory and practice by historizing, exploring, and unpacking dance and theatre praxis within the diasporic Filipino communities in Canada. Authors argue that for transnational connection and collaboration to ethically emerge it requires critical attention to the uneven distribution of material resources. Along with this is a consistent reflexivity on ethical considerations of the unequal power relations between collaborators who are part of the ensemble of these collaborations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.012 |
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".