Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the revival of British cinema during and after World War II led many critics to celebrate a new “cinema of quality,” there were also trends that seemed disturbing to some observers. In 1948 Harold Wilson who, as president of the Board of Trade in the Labour government, was responsible for the film industry, declared, “we are getting tired of some of the gangster, sadistic and psychological films of which we seem to have so many, of diseased minds, schizophrenia, amnesia and diseases which occupy so much of our screen time.” He wanted “to see more films which genuinely show our way of life” and refused to believe that “amnesia and schizophrenia are stock parts of our social life.” As a staunch realist, Wilson here conflates two meanings of “normality,” as what is common and typical and what is healthy and reasonable. His argument also depends on making clear distinctions between so-called normal states of mind and what Charles Barr calls “the darker forces” at work in the genre films to which Wilson refers. However, the sheer number of these films and the intensity of Wilson's denunciation of them suggest that they did appeal to fairly large audiences, and thus that “our way of life” was not as stable or as homogeneous as Wilson imagined. The continuing influence of the myth of the People's War and the social policies of the postwar Labour government stressed the need for collective action in the common interest, but according to Robert Murphy, this vision was “more than counter-balanced by the new opportunities for crime that the war opened up.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".