1922 Film Industry Trade Press Corpus
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
For the first half of the twentieth century, no American industry boasted a more motley and prolific trade press than the movie business—a cutthroat landscape that set the stage for battle by ink. In 1930, Martin Quigley, publisher of Exhibitors Herald, conspired with Hollywood studios to eliminate all competing trade papers, yet this attempt and each one thereafter collapsed. Exploring the communities of exhibitors and creative workers that constituted key subscribers, Ink-Stained Hollywood tells the story of how a heterogeneous trade press triumphed by appealing to the foundational aspects of industry culture—taste, vanity, partisanship, and exclusivity. In captivating detail, Eric Hoyt chronicles the histories of well-known trade papers (Variety, Motion Picture Herald) alongside important yet forgotten publications (Film Spectator, Film Mercury, and Camera!), and challenges the canon of film periodicals, offering new interpretative frameworks for understanding print journalism’s relationship with the motion picture industry and its continued impact on creative industries today. We selected the year 1922, with an emphasis on July 1922, for two chief reasons. First, the MHDL had already digitized a wide cross-section of trade papers from that year, including—appropriately for this book—several published outside of the United States. Second, we knew from Eric’s earlier research that there was a great deal of competition within the American film industry’s trade press during this period. In 1922, Variety and the Chicago-based Exhibitors Herald, were pursuing strategies to grow their readership and influence within the industry, emphasizing independence, integrity, and uniqueness as distinguishing factors. During the following year, Exhibitors Herald created the ‘“Herald Only’ Club”—emphasizing the loyalty of subscribers who exclusively wrote into Exhibitors Herald and read the paper, to the exclusion of its rivals (Hartman, Rea). Given the competitive bent of the 1920s trade press, how distinct was each publication? Would the “‘Herald Only’ Club” have any factual grounding once the word patterns, sentences, and page structures were analyzed at scale? In addition to the above-mentioned trade papers, we included 16 additional unique journals. Our corpus included fan magazines (Photoplay, Shadowland, and The Picturegoer), a technical journal (American Cinematographer), English language trade papers published outside the U.S. (Canadian Moving Picture Digest and The Film Renter and Moving Picture News), and studio generated publicity (Universal Weekly and Paramount Pep). This dataset is comprised of the scans of the trade papers we analyzed, as well as a zip archive of the code we used to do the similarity analysis. C.M. Hartman, qtd. in “‘Herald Only’ Club Gains Six; Veteran and Newcomer Give Reasons for Joining,” Exhibitors Herald, March 29, 1924, 63, http://lantern.mediahist.org/catalog/exhibitorsherald18exhi_0_0073 George Rea letter to Exhibitors Herald, Exhibitors Herald, May 26, 1923, 69, http://lantern.mediahist.org/catalog/exhibitorsherald16exhi_0_0869.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,241 | 0,049 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes 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 ».