Bibliographic record
Abstract
My paper resorts to the recently theorized notion of intermediality in order to examine the representation of theatre in Jesus of Montreal (Denys Arcand, 1989) Far from being a stopgap term called into being by the ever more numerous instances of border violation between media, intermediality comes with a prestigious pedigree. It is a member of the ‘inter’ family (alongside terms such as intertextuality and interdisciplinarity) and a descendant of a comparative approach which extends far back in time, encompassing genres such as the apology and the paragone. Despite the fact that in film studies intermediality is still to a certain extent impending, it is highly applicable to instances where film quotes or references another medium. A focus on intermediality in Jesus of Montreal authorizes questions such as: Which are the prioritized connection points between film and theatre? How is the relation of the two media formulated by Arcand? How does a filmmaker stage a theatrical event for a cinema audience? My paper seeks to demonstrate and exemplify the sophisticated nature of the film’s involvement with theatre. To this effect, I shall use ideas drawn from intermediality studies, narratology and drama theory in conjunction with close analysis of chosen sequences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".