Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Film festival studies, now a well-established field of research within film and media studies, has provided, over the last fifteen years, methodologies of research and theoretical frameworks to understand festivals as a crucial component of film cultures in the world.The major lesson that film festival scholarship has taught us is that festivals are more than the films they exhibit, thus inviting researchers to shift the attention from an exclusive focus on film texts to broader conditions of circulation, exhibition, commerce, and spectatorial experience.Historiographical approaches have brought forward the unique histories of film festivals as institutions that promote cinema as a form of art and constitute a self-sufficient circuit of distribution and exhibition. 1 In particular, the theorization of film festivals as a circuit has allowed an understanding of the sociocultural and geopolitical dynamics of global cinema. 2 Moreover, from a material perspective, the festival circuit has also been analyzed as a formation "upheld by the various stakeholders-filmmakers and studios, journalists and press agents, agencies, tourists boards, cinephiles and others." 3 Finally, sociological and anthropological approaches have also invited us to consider festivals as events that, through their peculiar temporality and material conditions of exhibition, provide an exceptional experience of film viewing as well as modes of socializing.4 This last aspect is particularly important for identity-based festivals, such as queer film festivals, in which the curatorial focus of the films exhibited is as equally important as the sensuous aspect of a community coming together.In this respect, two recent monographs on queer film festivals constitute fundamental contributions to queer cinema studies in general and film festival scholarship in particular: Stuart James Richards's The Queer Film Festival: Popcorn and Politics and Antoine Damiens's LGBTQ Film Festivals: Curating Queerness.Both authors situate their research in conversation with the main tenets and approaches of film festival scholarship, while at the same time they make critical intervention in the field, developing original theoretical frameworks and methodologies.Specifically, Richards, "to address the inherent objectives of the queer film festival's social empowering capacity and financial sustainability," combines attention to organizational structures and funding mechanisms of three large international queer film festivals with an analysis of what and how films are programmed (p.14).Damiens, instead, by focusing on smaller, ephemeral, almost forgotten queer festivals in North America and Europe, puts into question the "conceptual apparatus" of film festival scholarship that "does not adequately apply to the vast majority of festivals: its theoretical and methodological tools, devised for international festivals, do not necessarily account for smaller events" (p.23).Notwithstanding the two books' different aims, approaches, and selection of objects of study, they both attest to the understanding of queer film festivals as crucial space in which historical and contemporary sexual politics and cultures are played out.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,003 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».