MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514921961

From Lagos to Douala: Seeing Spaces and Popular Video Audiences

2007· article· en· W1514921961 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Babson Ajibade

Bibliographic record

VenuePostcolonial text · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopular cultureMedia studiesColonialismDecolonizationState (computer science)SociologyHistoryPolitical scienceLawPoliticsComputer scienceArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the popular video film debuted in Nigeria in the late 80s, filmmakers and critics sympathetic to celluloid perceived it as a fad that would soon extinguish. The cinematic culture, bequeathed by British colonialism, was thought to have generated a discerning film audience that would shun the video medium. This was not to be. The video film has grown from a few productions in the late 80s to more than 1000 features per year. Unlike celluloid before it, video is truly a popular medium. The same social and economic downturn that necessitated its rise as a direct alternative to celluloid is what ratifies video as a medium for dramatizing popular concerns. It is video's ability to enact and circulate – outside of the state's ability to control – that makes it fruitful for studying decolonization. More, the Nigerian popular videos have been able to break national boundaries and acquire a broader African audience, suggesting immediately that there is a commonality in the pain of popular experience across Africa's post-colonies. This paper outlines the categories of spaces for seeing video films – as sites for contesting self and other identities among popular masses – from Lagos to Douala.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePostcolonial textSame topicAfrican history and culture studiesFrench-language works237,207