Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Is there something like a Virtual Reality documentary or is VR already leaving the realm of filmic representation? Where is the difference between a VR film and a VR experience, how can the 360-degree film be classified in this spectrum? Can both real-life VR and computer-generated projects be labelled as documentaries? Is non-fictional VR also allowing a kind of collaboration or cooperation as known from web documentaries, or are the projects finished works that exhaust themselves in the unique reception? Are VR projects used for exchange between human individuals or only for interaction between humans and machines (and their program flow)? The paper would like to pursue these fundamental questions, as they have not yet been fully clarified and repeatedly lead to irritation when dealing with individual examples. The method of the talk is an evaluation and comparison of publications from the field of VR studies, integrating information science (Gutierrez 2016), media psychology (Jerald 2015, Slater et al. 2019), and film studies (Tricart 2018, Dooley 2021). In doing so, three areas should be addressed: First, the style and design of the projects (computer-generated, real, hybrid), second, how the user is addressed and incorporated (as viewer, as interactant, as collaborator) and third, the question of experience should be clarified in connection to the further development of documentary film theory, also taking into account the role of new technologies and the possibility of collaboration between users. To this end, various approaches are called for and combined into a cohesive design. In the second step, different projects as examples are used to test the design, most of which come from the collection of DOK Leipzig, the documentary film festival in Germany, having a section called Neuland dealing with digital forms. The aim is to explore the limits of the theoretical and analytical definition with the practice of producing and curating projects. As a result of this discussion, an open matrix of possibilities with different levels of categorization will be proposed. The aim is not to find a fixed all-encompassing definition but rather to create a framework in which very different projects at the intersection of “reflection about the real world” and “use of a head-mounted display” can be integrated. One hypothesis is that such a multi-level, eclectic approach is more successful than just finding a large-scale definition that must be adapted individually for every project. This analytical matrix should serve for the further examination of examples on the different levels of design, address, and the emerging development of exploring reality via digital media concerning design and possibilities of collaboration. I want to discuss with others about this proposal to clarify the question of whether it is possible to define similarities and differences to deal with the works both in artistic and scientific discourses.
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 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 | 0,000 | 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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».