Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The genesis of this edited volume came out of a conference, “Contours of Film Festivals Research and Methodologies,” which was originally conceived to be a one day in-person gathering in London in March 2020 which turned out to be the day when the first COVID-19 lockdown was introduced in the UK. As airplane tickets, hotel bookings, and dinner reservations were being canceled we announced that the conference would be postponed until September 2020. In a swift gesture that felt quite radical at the time, we decided to embrace what was a new format for an academic event and deliver it as a virtual conference via Microsoft Teams and Zoom. Almost immediately this format began to bear fruit as it allowed us to open up and expand the conference in new and unexpected directions. We were observing first-hand and by happenstance how any new format to produce and to disseminate knowledge is bound to create its own public which didn’t exist before ( de Mourat, Ricci, and Latour 2020 , 103). Firstly, we realized that we were able to include many more conference speakers than our original conference budget would ever have allowed us to do. Secondly, we noticed that the reach of our conference became much greater as with the virtual format we were able to attract audiences far beyond London and the UK, and not just from the Global North but also from the Global South. Our online conference included audience participants from the US, Europe, Canada, Tanzania, Chile, Pakistan, and other countries. Attending were not only film festival scholars who formed part of various networks such as FFRN (Film Festival Research Network), but also colleagues from NECS (European Network for Cinema and Media Studies), SCMS (Society for Cinema and Media Studies), and other scholarly associations. Thirdly, among the new roster of panelists and audience participants, there was a much higher proportion of film festival programmers of whom few would have been able to attend the original in-person conference in London. They were film programmers, archivists, curators, film festival directors (former or current), or else faculty who could be considered “hybrid” scholars and practitioners (that is, faculty who also founded or ran a film festival, or film festival programmers who had graduate degrees in the arts who left academia for the film festival world). Their participation changed the character of the original event radically, and ultimately inspired the direction and format this edited volume eventually took. We focused our investigation on exploring practice-based research in relation to film festivals and decided to publish the work as open access.
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 | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,536 | 0,346 |
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; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».