Bibliographic record
Abstract
John Huston once called it ‘the only film festival worth a damn,’ but times change and even before this year's distinctly lacklustre programme began, it was announced that the Edinburgh International Film Festival (EIFF) would be moving to June in 2008. The official party line espoused by debutante Artistic Director Hannah McGill is that the move to June will enable the EIFF to emerge from the shadow of August's wider Edinburgh Festival and become ‘the only show in town’ allowing the EIFF the ‘breathing space to expand and create our own distinct identity, allowing us to further develop our reputation as one of the more innovative, cutting-edge and challenging film events.’ But apparently there's a deeper problem. You see, according to the EIFF board of directors, in recent years Edinburgh's been missing out on the big stars and the big films because of its proximity to the Venice and London Film Festivals and it's someone's bright idea that a move to June (closer to Cannes) will apparently help. As Mrs Olfactory used to say on BBC Scotland's Chewin' the Fat ‘I can smell shite.’ Now, I love Edinburgh. Particularly in August. Sometimes, every now and then, the rain magically stops, the clouds part, and the sun puts his hat on. Sometimes it's even warm. But no matter how sunny it gets, you're never going to mistake Edinburgh's Royal Mile for Cannes' La Croisette. And I don't think your average Hollywood star is liable to make the mistake either. And there lies the problem. Who wants to eat vinegar-soaked chips from a newspaper on a windswept Portobello Beach when they could be squiring a topless starlet on the Cote D'Azur? Edinburgh isn't Cannes or Venice, it's not just a cattle market where Hollywood parades its latest blockbusters and its lack of …
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.015 |
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".