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
This essay discusses accessibility, community, bodily pain, and writing engagement, as well as meanings of “dramaturgy” in somatic and improvisation contexts. We work together as tender bodymindspirits—never just one, always interwoven—in complex inner and outer worlds. As a group of people working together, we use writing to find paths for witnessing experience. We created performances for and with each other. These are all small practices, often enacted in public, but not through spectacular performance. Instead, our work here draws on specific networks nourished through friendship and community—in the first case, the local circle of a small town in Michigan; in the second, the circle of disability-interested scholars in the Canadian East. Plain language abstract (adapted by Kelsie Acton with Daniel Foulds) This is writing about I’m Petra Kuppers, the main writer. I think about my own pain and making art when life is full of pain. I think about dramaturgy in caring for one another and moving together. Dramaturgy is a way of making meaning and making people feel. There are also two groups of artists in this essay. These two groups of artists share stories about making art together. I don’t write about the artists’ stories. I just share them so you can feel and think about making art together. The first set of stories is about a group of disabled people who met in Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA. Many people in this group live with pain. The second set of stories is about artists who work in universities. The artists meet in Toronto, Canada. We use movement, sound, and thinking deeply to make art about
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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 it