Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, Canadian-born Blind theatre artist Alex Bulmer identifies the significant events that shaped and informed her dramaturgical practice over multiple decades. Alex reflects on (1) the access infrastructure within the UK that enabled her to develop deeper dramaturgical thinking; (2) a more profound and connected approach to dramaturgy that Alex discovered and developed as a series of “Blind Imaginings” practices; and (3) how this practice continues to de-centre visuality in performance. Plain Language Abstract (adapted by Kelsie Acton with Daniel Foulds) Alex Bulmer is a Blind theatre artist who was born in Canada. In this article, she talks about the events that have shaped how she makes plays. Alex thinks about: The ways the UK supports access. This support let her think deeply about how plays mean and feel. The ways of making plays mean and feel that Alex developed. Alex calls these “Blind Imaginings.” The plays and creative projects the Blind Imaginings were developed for. How Blind Imaginings can create plays and art where seeing is not as important to meaning making as hearing, touching, and remembering.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.125 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".