MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561679495

Possible Worlds in Krzysztof Kieślowski’s Decalogue

2011· article· en· W1561679495 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Waclaw M. Osadnic

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian review of comparative literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Series (stratigraphy)GenealogyHistoryPhilosophyArt historyArtEpistemologyPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian Review of Comparative Literature / Revue Canadienne de Litterature Comparee CRCL SEPTEMBER 2007 SEPTEMBRE RCLC 0319-051X/07/34.3/345 ©CANADIAN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE ASSOCIATION Th ere are several clear patterns, or common motifs, which characterize Th e Decalogue—a series of movies based on Ten Commandments. In this series the fi ctional world constructed by Kieślowski is simple and logical. It is based on the following oppositions, to mention just a few:

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0090.027
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian review of comparative literatureSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207