Swimming in air (creative writing component): the role of the imagination from a scriptwriting and performance viewpoint in Peter pan (1904), The emperor's new clothes (1934) and The small poppies (1989) (dissertation component)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Truncated] The creative component and the thesis study is centred on a creative writing project titled Swimming in Air, which was developed while investigating the role of the imagination from a scriptwriting and performance viewpoint in J. M. Barrie‟s Peter Pan (1904), Charlotte Chorpenning‟s The Emperor‟s New Clothes (1934) and David Holman‟s The Small Poppies (1989). The three plays were chosen due to the playwights‟ textual devices associated with: a world-within-a-world scene structure, the literary object, imaginary objects and the imaginary companion. Certain scriptwriting and “possible” performance devices used in the three plays served to influence the writing and creative development of Swimming in Air in order to challenge the reader and future audience member to envisage the “invisible” onto the stage. The creative component: Swimming in Air Swimming in Air has been written for young people aged seven and over, which would either be produced as an “in theatre” and/or “in school” theatre production for a medium to large audience as well as with multimedia/technological and puppetry/visual requirements. I therefore envisage the reader, the future director and performers of the play will utilise their imagination when reading and/or presenting this work for young people. While writing this play, I have also kept in mind that first, the creative component is a playtext that is to be read, and second that the play has the potential to be performed. The script consists of twelve condensed scenes with multiple themes embedded throughout, which explore morality and the importance of the role of the imaginary character in young people‟s lives. When produced, the play would run for approximately fifty minutes to one hour of stage time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".