Film Festival/Film History: The Impact of Film Festivals on Cinema Historiography. Il cinema ritrovato and beyond1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this essay is to offer some coordinates for the analysis of the impact of film festivals on cinema historiography. Although film festivals have had a pivotal role in film studies since the 1940s in determining various aspects of research interests, both on a critical and theoretical level, it is only in recent years that they have gathered academic attention as an autonomous research field. Moreover, even among most studies of film festivals, the relationship between film festivals and cinematic historiography seems to have been overlooked. This essay is conceived, therefore, as a provisional contribution, attempting to delineate the scope of the topic and set some parameters for further research. After defining what we mean by the impact of film festivals on cinema historiography, we try to construct a conceptual framework, capable of examining how the strategies deployed by film festivals—such as their structure, schedules, published materials and round tables, as well as their identification of a target audience—implicitly highlight the potential impact of film festivals on cinema historiography. To exemplify our theoretical statements, we refer to different kinds of film festivals and, more particularly, make a few remarks about a very particular case, Il cinema ritrovato in Bologna.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".