Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this editorial, we position the journal issue between developments in expanded dramaturgy, access dramaturgy, and conceptions of disability. This is first done through an introduction to the basics of dramaturgy and accessibility. Dramaturgy enhances attention to how artists and audiences experience. In turn, this attention can be applied to consider whose strengths are placed at the centre of creation from the outset. When the strengths of people with disability and different ways of experiencing are embedded in creation methods and compositional principles with care, then sensory registers are expanded and disabling norms give way to accessibility. Authors in this issue advance such forms of embedded accessibility in their creative, educational, and research practices. Looking at what dramaturgies of accessibility become through these authors’ examples, we map the following topics: (1) awareness of how disability troubles normative ways of working; (2) working and learning with the people in in the room; (3) expanding ways of imagining, communicating, and sensing; (4) working with the aesthetics, ethos, and rigorous practices of accessibility; and (5) weaving and Re-stor(y)ing to produce accessible realities. Paying it forward, we invite readers/listeners to draw inspiration and partake in a growing community of knowledge on dramaturgies of accessibility.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it