Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional methods of preserving dance heritage, such as written records, filmed recordings,and collections of performance ephemera, fall short of capturing the embodied experience ofdance and fail to adequately safeguard movement itself. Drawing inspiration from intangiblecultural heritage practice and the work of Adrienne Kaeppler, this thesis asserts that the preservation of dance requires specialized care that prioritizes the experiential understanding of dancers. To explore this topic, the thesis offers a landscape survey of international dance heritage institutions and presents case studies of three exemplary institutions which model movement-oriented dance preservation practices: the Verdon Fosse Legacy Foundation, the Museo del Baile Flamenco, and Scenkonstmuseet. The research highlights the significance of embodied knowledge and interpersonal transmission in ensuring the continued vitality of dance and advocates for an expansion of collection strategies to incorporate community-oriented practice-based methods, as well as the adoption of heritage practices that prioritize dancers' firsthand expertise.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".