Rêves de nains. Le corps, le care et les cadres de l’expérience cinématographique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En s’appuyant sur les notions d’engagement et de cadres de l’expérience théorisées par Erving Goffman, l’article observe la manière dont certains films de fictions mobilisent notre sensibilité à la souffrance d’autrui et nous offrent l’occasion, par le biais du comique de situation, de nous solidariser avec des individus stigmatisés. Á travers la présence directe (l’acteur nain de Living in Oblivion, 1995) ou indirecte (le comédien professionnel incarnant le héros paraplégique de Nationale 7 [2000]) du corps stigmatisé, ils nous mettent en situation de sympathiser, par l’intermédiaire de la personne de l’acteur, avec les difficultés rencontrées par les personnes handicapées ou minorées. Á l’opposé d’une vision courante de l’expérience cinématographique, l’engagement corporel du spectateur confère ainsi à la situation de visionnement une efficacité émotionnelle et une valeur éthique équivalentes à celles d’une interaction de face-à-face.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".