Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Each September, the Toronto International Film Festival grants discerning spectators a chance to experience wonderful films from all over the world, many of which may never appear again. Forget all the hype, the red carpet, the paparazzi; think of the chance of seeing the latest film by Abbas Kiarostami, Pedro Almodovar, or Hou Hsiao-hsien. So quiet and so subtle, Hou's Cafe Lumiere will probably never surface even the most specialized theatres of North America. A film will gain, however, at least a limited exhibition is the one I wish to present this account--Notre Musique, by Jean-Luc Godard. In Purgatory, the central section of Notre Musique (2004) by Jean-Luc Godard, there is a sequence concerns the reconstruction of the single span, stone arch bridge Mostar, a medieval town south-west of Sarajevo Bosnia-Herzegovina. Spanning the Neretva River, the bridge was built by the Ottoman Turks 1566 of 456 blocks of stone, hundreds of which fell into the river when the bridge was destroyed 1993 during the Croat-Muslim war. Although Hungarians initially salvaged the stones from the river, the reconstruction was initially supervised by a French architect, Gilles Pequeux, (spelled Pecqueux the film's credits, the correct spelling is without the c) not to restore the past, he explains, but to make the future possible. He is talking to Olga Brodsky/Nade Dieu, a young Israeli Jew of Russian origin who is tormented by the irresolvable tensions between Israel and Palestine and who, Judith Lerner/Sarah Adler, another Israeli Jew, has come to Sarajevo to visit a country in which reconciliation seems possible. This sequence brings together three elements inform the film. First there is the international, multi-cultural mix. Along with professional actors, the film contains the actual presence of Pequeux, the architect; of Pierre Bergounioux, a French writer; of Juan Goytisolo, a Spaniard who recites his poems (without subtitles) while squatting amongst some ruins; and of Mahmoud Darwich, a Palestinian writer who is interviewed by Judith. They have all come to Sarajevo for the annual European Literary Encounters and, of course among them, interacting with them, is Jean-Luc Godard. Secondly, this sequence also establishes the two young women, Olga and Judith, who bear a strong resemblance to one another--the one moving towards darkness (as the press hand-out explains), the other towards light. Both want to understand these ethnic conflicts. Although Olga falls more and more deeply into despair when she thinks about the Palestinian/Israeli situation, Judith finds hope the reconstruction of the bridge, taking pictures with her digital camera as if to capture at least traces of this once conflicted country the effort to understand its relevance to her own. Finally, there is the bridge itself. Rebuilt from fragments retrieved from the past, being meticulously reconstructed by numbering all the shattered stones order to re-assemble them order, like learning a new language, as Pequeux explains, this process of reconstruction is what Godard has been doing with cinema all his life. He has constantly been building bridges--between the old and the new, between documentary and fiction, between film and video, between the real and the imaginary. There is also a psychological bridge between the young women, as if they are separate parts of the same endeavour, the recto/verso of the same pain. Olga is more committed to the real, Judith to the imaginary. Olga's despair at the situation with Palestine leads her to contemplate suicide, preferably some self-sacrificial way. Echoing the existential ultimatum put forward by Albert Camus the 1940s, she explains to her Uncle Ramos/Rony Kramer, himself an Israeli Jew living France, that will be total liberty, when it's the same to live or die. That's my goal, she explains. Drole de but! …
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
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 découle