Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Distributed by Bullfrog Films, PO Box 149, Oley, PA 19547; 800-543-FROG (3764)Produced by Moby, Janice Dawe, Chris Hegedus, and Kyle VogtDirected by Liz Marshall2021, Streaming, 88 mins While Meat the Future is a decent documentary, the title is a bit misleading. It makes is sounds like what will be covered is how and why ‘clean meat’, also called ‘lab grown meat’, is the meat of the future. What the film actually covers is a brief history on the first few years of the Memphis Meats company, now called Upside Foods, as well as a partial biography on its co-founder Uma Valeti. Throughout, we hear from people who are passionate about ‘clean meat’, and counter views of those who oppose with the movement, and why. This balance was really appreciated, as there are quite a few ethical questions surrounding the issue. What is missing is the scientific and technical angle; this only briefly comes up and is quickly explained that its proprietary information. As producing ‘clean meat’ is a very new processes and product, this is somewhat understandable, however it is still a little disappointing. It does include some information on establishing U.S. federal regulations on this emerging industry. Jane Goodall does narration only at the beginning and end of the film, for just a few minutes; throughout the rest there is no narration, we just hear from the people themselves. Lastly, the copy viewed for this review didn’t include subtitles, so there’s no comment to add on their quality, but the DVD version includes English SDH captions for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, and streaming on Docuseek is available with closed captions. Meat the Future is not recommended for courses looking for a film that covers the methods and scientific or technical aspects of producing ‘clean meat’, or that describes the end product’s properties (other than taste). However, if instructors are looking for a conversation starter on bioethics, or simply bioengineering projects/industries of the future in general, this would be a good choice. Interested subject areas might include, bioengineering, STEM in general, business, entrepreneurship and possibly politics. Regardless of subject area, there is an abundance of topics for discussion and/or written responses, in terms of assignments. It is rather long, at almost an hour and a half, so it would most likely need to be watched outside of class time. Awards:Nominee, Best International Documentary & Best International Director, Melbourne International Documentary Film Festival; Crystal Pelican Award, Best Director, International Science Film Festival World of Knowledge; Best Picture Editing - Documentary, Directors Guild of Canada Awards; Nominee, Best Film - Global Health Competition, Cleveland International Film Festival; Nominee, Jury Prize for Best Documentary, Riviera International Film Festival; Nominee, Donald Brittain Award for Best Social Political Documentary, Canadian Screen Awards; Nominee, Best Sound - Non-Fiction, Canadian Screen Awards; Inspiration Award for Commitment to Filmmaking for Change, Filmocracy Fest
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,377 | 0,112 |
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 ».