MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978407330 · doi:10.7202/008956ar

La cinématographie comme dispositif (du) spectaculaire 1

2004· article· fr· W1978407330 on OpenAlex
Frank Keßler

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

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En partant du concept du dispositif tel qu’il a été défini dans les années 1970, par Jean-Louis Baudry notamment, cet article cherche à le redéfinir de deux façons : d’abord en tenant compte de l’évolution diachronique du dispositif — remettant ainsi en question le mythe de son unicité —, puis en privilégiant une approche pragmatique historique — abandonnant ainsi la perspective métapsychologique traditionnelle. Les débuts de la cinématographie sont mis à contribution en vue de mettre en évidence deux formes de dispositif ayant précédé celui du cinéma institutionnel : la cinématographie comme dispositif spectaculaire , dans le cadre duquel c’est la capacité de la machine de prendre et de reproduire du mouvement qui prédomine ; et la cinématographie comme dispositif du spectaculaire , où c’est le spectacle filmé lui-même qui constitue l’attraction principale.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.205 · 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