Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article considere le systeme d’evaluation realise par les jurys de pairs lors des festivals de films a travers le monde. Bien qu’il suscite de nombreuses critiques, cette modalite d’evaluation, presente egalement dans le milieu academique, est reputee etre le meilleur moyen de selection de l’excellence malgre sa subjectivite inherente et ses strategies intrinseques. Ce texte examine le role des jurys de pairs, leurs qualites et leurs limites, leur composition, leur fonctionnement, les fonctions et les specificites de leur directeur, de leur president et de leurs pairs. This article considers the evaluation system used by peer juries during world film festivals. Although it raises many criticisms, said device which is also present in academia is deemed to be the best system of excellence selection despite its inherent subjectivity and intrinsic strategies. This paper examines the role of peer juries, their qualities and their limits, their makeup, their functioning, the functions and qualities of their program officer, their panel chair and their peers.
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 | 0.018 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".