MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7162074034 · doi:10.59236/emro.v26i3a8183

Guardians

2024· article· W7162074034 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Pasqualoni

Notice bibliographique

RevueEducational Media Reviews Online · 2024
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueCinema and Media Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFilm directorConversationAppealNarrativeSituatedRelevance (law)Perspective (graphical)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Distributed by Minerva NavascaProduced by Brianne HarvieDirected by Minerva Navasca2021, Streaming, 6 mins Guardians is a short documentary film that opens up a personal perspective on the risks of sexual assault confronted by young women. As a student film, the positive recommendation for this title arises from the compelling nature of its maker. There is a strong potential match for this brief film with viewing situations where classroom adoption at multiple education levels may recommend Guardians as an excellent conversation catalyst. Interest will also be present in looking at the film as an early work by an emerging filmmaker of color. Being an honest chronicle of this filmmaker’s voice, this narration having been created when the filmmaker was a student herself, offers a probable increased relatability to similarly situated student viewers. True at both high school and college levels. Guardians, however, is not the strongest piece of visual communication, despite its compelling audio narration. That weakness is not entirely dismissive of its potential direct relevance and appeal in some educational settings. The video flow seems a bit tacked on. As the film stands, the content might have even worked equally well or better if rendered exclusively as a creative audio production. Societal consideration apart from this film of the marginalization and abuse of women, and the dangers associated with travel, can at times be given an ignorant gloss. Modern information and communications technologies themselves have a fraught historical overlap with abuse and violence. The assumption of connection, including digital connections, as cultivating safety, itself requires ongoing interrogation. Not to be ignored in that is the matter of who owns the connections, content as well as infrastructure for the messages we send and receive. Feeling the relief our protagonist here experiences in being joined with loved ones during a periodically frightening nighttime stroll, the other abuser lurking in shadows is a surveillance culture accompanying that same connectivity, and even perhaps some of the private companies owning the devices and networks. The candor here that takes the listener into forthright mobile phone conversations, clashes at times with a few visual choices in the filmmaking. While that cinematography in Guardians is competent, some of the visual flourishes seem unusually light, or even too random at several moments. Stronger connections between what we hear and the person or persons speaking those things, probably would be beneficial. Or alternatively, connections to the themes being discussed. If on the other hand, the main objective on screen is to be a direct visual chronicle of the late night walk central to the film, the cinematography could have been truer to that plain-spoken goal. In Guardians, there is a wavering in the visual edits and their prevailing aesthetic, on the one hand, between realistic depictions revealing moments in time and space and a type of cinema verité, and then on the other hand, what seems to be the desire to illustrate impressionistic moments of thought. An attempt to do a little of both in a short film falls a bit flat. As presently assembled, that ambiguity works at cross purposes for this otherwise earnest and important student production. Whether intended or not, some of the confusion mirrors displacement common between digital connectivity and the literal physical environments we inhabit. Many educators, and those supporting their resources, when working in any respect with issues of violence against women, gender or racial bias, student safety and the like, can embrace this short film as a poignant addition to coverage of those topics. Its emotional clarity, honest voice, and recorded digital conversations are highly recommended. The cinematography in Guardians will not distract, but could have been stronger in its alignment with, or counterpoint toward, the main themes being discussed by the filmmaker. Those editing choices as to what we see are less interesting than the documentation of what we hear. Awards:Best Documentary, BFI Future Film Festival 2024; Best Documentary Short Film, Cinefam Film Festival, Toronto 2022; Best Non-Fiction Film, Sheridan College Screen Arts Awards, Oakville, 2022

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,287
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,020

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 Opus0,074
Tête enseignante GPT0,320
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEducational Media Reviews OnlineMême sujetCinema and Media StudiesTravaux en français237 207