MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501946561 · doi:10.7202/1011656ar

« It is man’s work and you are just little girlies » : narration genrée et figures de l’empowerment féminin dans le film catastrophe hollywoodien

2012· article· fr· W1501946561 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
François-Xavier Molia

Bibliographic record

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le film catastrophe hollywoodien des années 1970 reproduisait les représentations traditionnelles des rapports de sexe dans une société patriarcale. Le cycle des années 1990 semble, lui, prendre acte des évolutions de la société contemporaine en accordant aux femmes une présence filmique accrue ainsi que des statuts sociaux plus importants. À quelle éventuelle élaboration générique ce rééquilibrage de la galerie des personnages conduit-il ?Twister(Jan de Bont, 1996),Deep Impact(Mimi Leder, 1998) etTitanic(James Cameron, 1997) modifient la formule du film catastrophe en y greffant des éléments susceptibles (du moins le suppose-t-on) d’attirer les spectatrices vers un genre « pour hommes » : traitement approfondi des enjeux amoureux et familiaux, hybridation avec le mélodrame ou la romance et amplification de la tonalité pathétique et, enfin, travail sur le point de vue féminin à travers différents procédés narratifs. Cette réorientation produit du « texte incohérent » (Robin Wood), sur le plan générique et sur le plan des représentations genrées, puisque ces femmes agissantes mais malgré tout dominées font osciller les films entre vision progressiste et stéréotypes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiquesSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207