MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W192236929

Looking for Robin: Notes on a Completed PhD Project a Decade Later

2011· article· en· W192236929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olof Hedling

Bibliographic record

VenueCineaction! · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)SisterMedia studiesArt historyHistoryLibrary scienceSociologyLawComputer sciencePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the second part of the 1990s I researched and wrote a PhD thesis at Lund University, Sweden. My topic was the film criticism of Robin Wood. As my investigation got underway I was able to place a number of articles and excerpts in Swedish academic journals. I also gave one or two conference papers on my subject. Besides that, I translated pieces by Robin into Swedish. The work came to an end of sorts as the thesis was published in Swedish as not quite a 300 page book in October 2001 (it went to the printers on 9/11). Its title was Robin Wood--brittisk filmkritiker (Robin Wood--British Film Critic) and it had a still from Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo (1959) on the cover. On the recommendation of Robin's acquaintance, sometime colleague and occasional promoter Peter Harcourt, I wrote one further piece. It was my first in English and a somewhat feeble attempt to say something about Robin's knotty relationship with Canada, Canadian film and the concept of national cinema, an area not really covered in the thesis. The article was printed in Canadian Journal of Film Studies. (1) After the book was published it was, or parts of it were, used on film studies reading lists at several Swedish universities for quite some time (it is long out of print, but I continued to receive requests for permission to make photocopies until last year). Otherwise, I cannot say that it was met with much interest. Frankly, my colleagues at the department of literary studies--where film studies was housed at the time--thought Robin's commitment to Andre Bazin's notion that Hollywood should be studied because of its 'vitality, and, in a certain sense, the excellence of a tradition' plain ridiculous. Friends within my own field, on the other hand, tended to see his work as a bit outmoded, non-theoretical and perhaps not quite scholarly. Mainly, he seemed to be thought of as an important person during an early phase in the ever developing evolution of our field. From a practical point of view, the most encouraging thing the book did for me was that it ultimately gained me entry into professional academe and thus a regular income. For various reasons, my research has been focused on quite different topics ever since. This, however, does not mean that my fascination with Robin's work ended. I did follow him through the late books, the Wayne State University Press re-issues and up until his last essays for Artforum and Film Comment as well as the reports from the Toronto film festival in CineAction. These days, I regularly re-read him. I laugh and marvel at some of his more personal and provocative passages. I have also retained great admiration for his stylistic elegance, for certain of his conceptual thoughts and for his many suggestive critical insights. Another pleasure has been to detect work that clearly is inspired by Robin's example or would have been impossible without it. For instance, take the introduction to David Bordwell's Planet Hong Kong (2000), a book that has just been revised for a second edition as this is written. Bordwell--always an admirer of Robin and the author of a heartfelt obituary--here maps out what he terms 'the general idea of an aesthetic of popular cinema' and a 'vigorous tradition of mass entertainment' while also speaking plenty about 'craft' and 'refining the tradition'. (2) Instantly, Robin's two pioneering introductions to the Hitchcock and Hawks' book, composed more than three decades earlier when very little of the kind really had been attempted, resonate vibrantly. Some kind of friend Doing research on Robin's writings and career also meant that, in various ways, I came to follow in the footsteps of his life path. Early on, I became familiar with the odd coincidence that he had lived in Sweden during two periods of his life, and that the second of these had actually been spent in Lund, the very place where I lived. He even met his wife there and married her in Lund's town hall, a fact I have later pointed out to several astounded film scholars, principally familiar with Robin as a gay man and critic. …

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.008
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0090.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.010

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCineaction!Same topicLiterature, Film, and Journalism AnalysisFrench-language works237,207