MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820508287 · doi:10.21083/surg.v4i1.1105

Film as a reflection of society: interracial marriage and Stanley Kramer’s Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner in late 1960s America

2010· article· en· W1820508287 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHollywoodOpposition (politics)White (mutation)SociologyGray (unit)PoliticsReflection (computer programming)Gender studiesMedia studiesPolitical scienceArt historyHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the debate of whether Hollywood films act as influential and progressive forces in a society, or do they serve as a larger reflection of that society. I examine Stanley Kramer’s film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967), about an interracial marriage between a black man and a white woman. Was the film progressive for its time, or was it reflective of the social attitudes in late 1960s America? I argue that although there are aspects of the film that can be construed as progressive and influential for the era, the film more accurately serves as a reflection of the larger socio-political context of 1960s America in regards to both attitudes of opposition and acceptance of interracial marriage. Furthermore, a brief comparison is also made between the film and contemporary issues surrounding race relations in 21st Century America.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · 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