MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W349675815

Baseball: The Tenth Inning

2011· article· en· W349675815 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francesco Ardolino

Notice bibliographique

RevueNine · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican Sports and Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPower (physics)MantraBeautyArt historyHistoryArtMedia studiesAdvertisingLawAestheticsSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Baseball: The Tenth Inning. Produced and directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. PBS, 2010.4 hrs. Frank Ardolino The original Emmy Award--winning, nine-part documentary Baseball, which was broadcast on PBS in 1994 during players' strike, was seen by more than 43 million viewers, making it most watched film in PBS history. (1) The series covered 1839 to 1992, and it was intended in some measure to provide an antidote to disenchantment with baseball following termination of 1994 season. Baseball may have broken down as result of mutual greed and power games of players and owners, but Burns unfolded glorious history of America's game to compensate for stoppage on field. After completing his magnum opus, Burns was determined not to deal with subject again, but when he saw resurgent popularity of game during ensuing sixteen years, he decided to chronicle what he calls baseball's new age. (2) But this golden age has an ignominious shadow over it, and The Tenth Inning both extols beauty of game on field and laments problems raised by some players' use of steroids and related performance-enhancing drugs. Burns prefaces two-part program with mantra that no matter what happens off field, it's still a great game. Even opening ad for Bank of America celebrates healing pastoral powers of baseball throughout years. However, Burns's consolatory motto contains a false dichotomy: drug use may have occurred off field, but its effect is felt on field. It's impossible to separate game into two distinct categories because they are inextricably connected. Barry Bonds looks great hitting home runs throughout documentary, and, on one hand, we are asked to celebrate his prowess, but, on other hand, our suspicion that his Ruthian blasts are fueled by drugs undercuts our admiration. To support positive theme, players are shown making a succession of superlative plays, and various ball fields are presented in all their green glory. Star players like Ichiro Suzuki, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Omar Vizquel, and Pedro Martinez provide heroic images to thrill fans. Mixed inextricably with these memories, however, is specter of drug use by home run titans, Sosa, McG-wire, and Bonds. In particular, Burns uses Bonds as Frankenstein's monster, with whom game will have to deal when he stakes his claim in the bottom of tenth as greatest player ever. Burns establishes a dramatic pattern to his presentation by invariably following a positive aspect of game, exemplified, for example, by Cal Ripken's consecutive games record. Ripken's record is cited as means of restoring fan support after hateful 1994 strike, with a return to Bonds mythos of supreme talent and Faustian ambition. The effect on baseball of rise and fall of Barry Bonds constitutes principal focus of four-hour program. The nature and structure of Tenth Inning is based on a dual temporal perspective: past events being chronicled and present from which our act of retrospection takes place. Because subsequent revelations have influenced our perception of past events, we obviously enjoy a superior perspective, but at same time through Burns's expert direction we can see even more meanings in these events than mere passage of time would provide. He assembles a visual and vocal mixture of film highlights; photos; voiceover narration; music; and commentary by broadcasters, writers, players, managers, and fans to create a multi-leveled and connected look at events he considers most important. Burns's characteristic pattern consists of a remark by narrator Keith David about upcoming scene, followed by footage of event unfolding or a photo that illustrates point being made, which is succeeded by a comment from Bob Costas, Mike Barnicle, Howard Bryant, George Will, or Tom Boswell, among others, all of whom establish consistent personas in unfolding events. …

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,527
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,819

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1820,000

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 Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,193
Écart entre enseignants0,155 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNineMême sujetAmerican Sports and LiteratureTravaux en français237 207