MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4242312520 · doi:10.1353/sym.0.0010

Editor's Note

2008· article· en· W4242312520 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

Revuesymplokē · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMovie theaterMedia studiesGlobalismFocus (optics)SociologyArt historyHistoryVisual artsPolitical scienceArtLawPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Editor's Note Jeffrey R. Di Leo The focus of this issue is the interplay between borders and cinema. While the concept of borders (and borderlessness) has been a recurring topos of many articles published in this journal over the years, and a good number of our contributors have done fine work on cinema, this is our first issue decidedly devoted to these subjects. As we shaped the request for contributions to the issue, associate editor Ian Buchanan and I hoped that the topic would be a strong platform to bring together cutting-edge theoretical work on film while weighing in on the related issues that have been taken up in previous issues, such as "Globalism and Theory" (Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2 (2001)) and "Discouragement" (Vol. 14, Nos. 1-2 (2006)). Some time later, I asked Allyson Nadia Field to co-edit this issue with me. Allyson is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Comparative Literature at Harvard University, where she is pursuing a secondary field in Film and Visual Studies. She received her Masters in Film and Television Studies from the Universiteit van Amsterdam, and her BA in Art History from Stanford University. Her background and interests squared well with our intended focus. Allyson and I decided that rather than just doing an issue on borders and cinema—a relatively established topic—we would pursue a new direction: cinema without borders. The thought was that we would challenge potential contributors to ask how contemporary filmmakers are moving past notions of nation towards a borderless global order. The topic of this issue speaks to both a cinematic reality and a filmmaking ideal. The reality is that increasingly, the material conditions of cinema are multinational in nature. Many films are shot in multiple countries, have international casts and financing, and are literally shown all over the world. For example, the latest James Bond film, Casino Royale (2006), has been rated for viewing in over thirty countries including Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, the Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland—in addition to the US and UK. Combined with pirated DVD and Internet versions, access to this film is borderless. [End Page 5] However, the focus of these essays is less on the material conditions of a cinema without borders and more on the conceptual notions associated with a borderless cinematic ideal. While the films explored span the globe, their aim is less to promote the notion of "world cinema" than to examine what it means in the age of globalization (or late capitalism) to make films that draw upon geographical borders. How do these films and their makers negotiate cultures, languages, and philosophies? The collective conclusion of the contributions seems to be that while we have not yet reached the point of a cinema without borders, we are well along the path. All of the essays in this focus save one deal explicitly with issues concerning film and borders. The one that does not is J. Hillis Miller's "Boundaries in Beloved." Though one might explain away its presence by noting that Toni Morrison's novel was made into a film, this would overlook the real contribution of this essay to our focus. In many ways, Miller's imaginatively rich analysis of the concept of boundaries and borders sets the theoretical table for much of the work that follows. Also, the spirit in which Miller approaches issues of boundaries in fiction fits well with our issues of boundaries in film. Writes Miller, "One function of novels is to make our lived situation explicit by giving imaginary examples of the way people live their lives in terms of boundaries." Following Miller, one might also reasonably assert the same claim about films. Or, in a riff on Miller's line that fits even more specifically the aim of this issue: "One function of films is to make our lived global situation explicit by giving imaginary examples of the way people live their lives as global citizens without boundaries." Finally, one cannot help but wonder after reading these essays whether cinema is globalizing the world...

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 candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,755
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,953

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 technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,359
Écart entre enseignants0,337 · 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.

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

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuesymplokēMême sujetCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationTravaux en français237 207