MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3194408519 · doi:10.1111/gwao.12748

“On and off screen: Women's work in the screen industries”

2021· article· en· W3194408519 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louise Wallenberg, Maria Jansson

Notice bibliographique

RevueGender Work and Organization · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCultural Industries and Urban Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesRiksbankens Jubileumsfond
Mots-clésMovie theaterContext (archaeology)Film industryNorm (philosophy)Creative workFilm directorCreative industriesAdvertisingArtBusinessPolitical scienceVisual artsHistoryLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Similar to many creative (and other) industries, the film and television industries have for long been permeated by male norms, and by the male worker as the norm.In this context, women workers have always been considered "oddities"unless they have acted in front of the camera.To a large extent, women have been (and still are) image (Fischer, 1976;Mulvey, 1975).Women's work behind the camera have been counteracted, not least through efforts to exclude them from positions characterized as "creative" or "above-the-line" such as director, producer, and script writer.Further, women have been met with pervading difficulties in allocating finances for their projects and with circumscribed possibilities to have their work screened in the cinema.And although (a few) women are key through their function as "image, " films with a woman protagonist are usually provided with a lesser budget than films with a male lead, and women actors get distinctly less paid than their male counterparts (SFI, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalier- obehmed/2017/08/22/full-list-the-worlds-highest-paid-actors-and-actresses-2017/?sh=2e1c961f3751).Let us give an example of the former: in the Swedish film industry, recently hailed worldwide of being one of the most gender equal screening industries, feature films made between 2013 and 2016 differed in terms of budget depending on the whether the protagonist in a film was male or female.Films with a male lead had on average a 33% higher budget than films with a woman lead.In that same period, women feature film directors had on average a budget ranging between 66% and 86% of the budget of films with a man as director (SFI, 2018).The report published in 2018, by the Swedish Film Institute, concluded that: "[films with women in] key functions generally have overall lower budgets than men" (SFI, 2018, p. 17).Following the international impact that the #Metoo-movement has had and still has, and the recent demands for a 50/50 dispersion between men and women on above-the-line positions in the film industry, gender issues have advanced to the forefront in discussions dealing with the working situation in the film and screen industries.These discussions have appeared in various national contexts in print and social media, as well as in academic work (see, e.g., Jansson et al., 2020; Liddy, 2020;Marghitu, 2018;Meziani & Cabantous, 2020;O'Brien, 2019).It has become obvious that gender inequality pervades all screen industries, large and small, and that women screen workers in different national screen contexts share similar experiences.As film and television production is becoming more and more globalized, with single productions often being the outcome a variety of regional and national industries, finances and competences, working and gendered experiences of being in the industry are also becoming increasingly globalized.Still, there are regional and local differences in how women screen workers experience their work and career situation and these need to be addressed.There are also various aspects of screen work that remain to be tended to academically.Hence, this special section offers a sample of national and local studies that all investigate how gender and equality work is done in four different contexts.It is our hope that this small sample may inspire not only more studies of national contexts, but also inspire to future cross-national studies.Before discussing how various academic fields have engaged with the screening industries in terms of work experience and representation, we wish to point out that film and television, as two available media formats reaching large and heterogeneous audiences, constitute two of the most central expressions of our time, and that both contribute to reflect and mold our understanding of society, of others -and of ourselves (de Lauretis, 1987;Dyer, 1993).

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,042
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,084

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0260,017
Communication savante0,0130,007
Science ouverte0,0010,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,245
Écart entre enseignants0,211 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations14
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueGender Work and OrganizationMême sujetCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207