MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1827417636 · doi:10.7202/1030229ar

Le chagrin d’Achille et la colère de Brad : réflexion sur une médiation oubliée dans la représentation des affects extrêmes

2015· article· fr· W1827417636 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Johanne Lamoureux

Bibliographic record

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir d’une critique de l’interprétation du personnage d’Achille par Brad Pitt dansTroie(Troy, 2004), cet article montre que le jeu de l’acteur, lorsqu’il s’agit d’exprimer les affects extrêmes de la colère et du chagrin qui caractérisent le héros homérique, reconduit des conventions figuratives et des effets de censure déjà mis en place par la représentation des mêmes épisodes au sein des beaux-arts. Or c’est là une médiation négligée par les spécialistes des études cinématographiques et desqueer studiesqui ont beaucoup commenté le film, en déclinant la longue liste des écarts entre l’oeuvre épique et son adaptation cinématographique, mais sans tenir compte de la tradition figurative, revisitée par la peinture de la fin duxviiie siècle, qui s’est trouvée elle aussi confrontée aux difficultés d’adapter visuellement la démesure affective et expressive de l’Achille d’Homère, pour un public dont l’idéal antique de beauté virile s’appuyait désormais sur un canon classique postérieur de plusieurs siècles à l’Iliade.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.031
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiquesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207