Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A vast amount has been written about this war. I was recently in Toronto University library, one of the world’s major research libraries, whose books on the World War fill some thirty bays of shelving: equivalent to a couple of hundred linear metres of books – just on this one war. So much has been published on the theme that one might be forgiven for thinking that little more of originality could be written about it, and yet new and fresh interpretations of all aspects of the war continue to appear on the shelves, on diverse areas of military, diplomatic and social history. One might mention, just considering English-language books, the general histories by Strachan, Stone and Ferguson; military histories such as the book by Alexander Watson; diplomatic histories like the influential volume by Hamilton and Herwig; and social histories such as Chickering’s on urban life in Germany during the war and Richard Holmes’ study of the British regular soldier. There have also been recent important works of bibliography on the War, and books covering such subjects as media representation and propaganda, as well as countless journal articles. In this issue of Film History we add to the Great War literature, looking at the film industry strictly during the period 1914–1918. This circumscription by date means that there is nothing here on later cinematic reflections of the War (The Big Parade, All Quiet on the Western Front, etc) – after all, a large literature already surrounds such cinematic reimaginings, Kelly’s aforementioned book being a leading example. Of course, a good deal has also been written about film within the 1914–18 period itself, but much remains to be done, as this issue demonstrates. For one thing, many of the articles here are about the situation in non English-speaking countries, whereas most of the existing writings in English (certainly in this journal) have dealt with British or American aspects of the War. This issue opens with Richard Abel’s examination of a spate of “feature” documentaries about the World War that were shown in the United States as the conflict was taking place. His principal sources are newspaper ads for the films, and from these it seems that many of them took a partisan line, with a striking number having a pro-German tone. Cooper Graham and Ron van Dopperen investigate the film career of Edwin F. Weigle, war cameraman for the Chicago Tribune, who filmed aspects of the defeat of Belgium in 1914, and also in Germany in 1915. Laurent Veray has studied film and the First World War for many years, and has published much on this theme, mainly in French: his paper in this issue summarises several aspects of his earlier work about official production by France during the war. Sabine Lenk’s article, based on documents in the Dusseldorf municipal archives, examines film censorship in that German city during the conflict. Then follow two papers on the situation in the Netherlands, which remained neutral in the War. Karel Dibbetts and Wouter Groot look at the exhibition of The Battle of the Somme (1916), as well as war Film History, Volume 22, pp. 363–365, 2010. Copyright © John Libbey Publishing ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in United States of America
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,069 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».