Five Tools: A Corporeal Mime Perspective on the Roots of Expression in the Body
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Research Note discusses the working techniques surrounding five practical physical theatre tools developed by Dean Fogal. Fogal studied in Paris with Marcel Marceau and Etienne Decroux and assisted Thomas Leabhart at the University of Arkansas before returning home to Vancouver, British Columbia, where he researched and taught corporeal mime over the course of fifty years. Fogal explains how actors can use ropes, poles, elastics, chairs, and umbrellas to muscularize their impulses and intentions and thereby embody the connected truth between themselves and their characters, themselves and their space, and finally themselves and their audience. A studio-based researcher, Fogal’s Note explores theatricality and performativity beyond the traditional contexts of text-based theatre and drama, revealing his understanding of corporeal mime as the root of the actor’s craft. The piece is edited by Fogal’s daughter Claire Fogal, who, in her dissertation, describes her father’s research as a “diagonal transmission” of Decroux’s work, faithful to the innate principles of corporeal mime but extended and transformed in relation to Western Canadian culture and Fogal’s own focus on ensemble development, the actor’s well-being and agency, and the grounded belonging fundamental to great performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.093 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".