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
A distinction between an earlier and later Charles Taylor might be drawn between Charles Taylor political activist versus Charles Taylor intellectual. (1) Certainly nature of writing going on in a political tract like The Pattern of Politics (1970) (2) is at removes from intellectual forays into malaise of modernity or crisis of self and identify. I won't attempt to square what an earlier Taylor says with a later Taylor. But Taylor's politics were local enough in 1960s to make a book he wrote during that time pertinent 1o what I want to say about The Trotsky (2009), a film shot entirely in Montreal and engaged in its own way with radical Canadian politics. I am not applying a Taylorian reading to film than suggesting that film itself is a reading of this particular political text of Taylor's--that movie ingests and thereby depicts some of us most pertinent lessons. Even if a later Taylor does not square with an earlier Taylor, what The Trotsky attempts is to make something like politics of polarization matter once again, which is to say it attempts to reclaim some of lessons put forward in The Pattern of Politics. One could also say this film attempts to reclaim dialectic, in particular notion that holds conflict (between clearly opposing viewpoints) as lynchpin of social change. How film reinterprets dialectic will be considered here. The premise of film that a young Montreal teenager, Leon Bronstein (Jay Baruchel), believes himself to be living embodiment of Leon Trotsky reincarnated suggests it is not beyond pale to think about things like having another's soul occupy one's body, and, from there, to consider whether ontology of film facilitates a discussion of reincarnation (another's soul trapped in a body eerily present to us) or rather, something like reverse (a body occupying another's soul). I raise these examples in consideration of ontological differences between what Cavell calls, simply, (stage actor) and (screen actor). What we might nowadays call 1960s (Canadian) counterculture, auteuring a film explicitly aimed at youth of Canada. Whether or not Pierre Trudeau is a galvanizing figure for today's youth or not, those who are curious to know him are likely to know him through Colm Fiore. I don't mean that Fiore's persona trumps Trudeau's. Indeed, Fiore interprets Trudeau way a stage actor interprets a character. But Fiore, in interpreting Trudeau, is interpreting a star, or, say, Trudeau's star-like quality and not a character, To play role of Trudeau, he must get his persona to match Trudeau's. Others may come along, not with different interpretations, but something like better impersonations. (4) Yet for a generation at least (or for a generation of Canadian youth interested in 1960s Canadian counterculture now), simply by having appeared to us as Trudeau on screen, Fiore's persona will invoke or be caught up with Trudeau (though not vice versa). Fiore is, or has achieved, a reincarnation of Trudeau. The [stage] actor's role is his subject (or study, and there is no end to it. But screen performer is essentially not an actor at all: he is subject of study, and a study not his own. (That is what content of a photograph is--its subject.) On a screen study is projected; on a stage actor is projector. An exemplary stage performance is one which, for a time, most fully creates a character. After Paul Scofield's performance in King Lear, we know who King Lear is, we have seen him in flesh. An exemplary screen performance is one in which, at a time, a star is born. After The Maltese Falcon, we know a new star, only distantly a person. means the figure created in a given set of films. His presence in those films is who he is, not merely in sense in which a photograph of an event is that event; but in sense that if those films did not exist, Bogart would not exist, mane would not mean what it does. …
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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