MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A composição como prática-chave para fomentar condições mais diversas nos processos de criação cênica

2025· article· W7131122276 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Cientí­fica/FAP · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArts and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversidade Federal de Santa MariaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Relation (database)SermonVariety (cybernetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artigo apresenta as práticas de composição como estratégias centrais para fomentar processos criativos mais plurais e diversos nas artes cênicas. A partir dos referenciais teóricos de Van Kerkhoven, Kuppers, Fagundes, Eugênio & Fiadeiro, Bogart & Landau e Sermon & Chapuis, definimos e analisamos essas duas noções em articulação com o processo criativo do coletivo artístico Bureau de l’APA, sediado em Quebec, com base em entrevistas e observações — participantes e não participantes. Ao integrar teoria e prática, o artigo evidencia como a composição favorece a abertura, a escuta e a flexibilidade, configurando processos criativos como um territórios de multiplicidade — habitado por artistas inventivos, bricoleurs, que operam entre fronteiras e disciplinas.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.262 · 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