MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Everybody's Going: City Newspapers and the Early Mass Market for Movies

2005· article· en· W1984644576 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Paul S. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueCity and Community · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoYork University
KeywordsNewspaperJournalismMedia studiesSociologyAdvertisingMetropolitan areaMass mediaPromotion (chess)ModernityHistoryPolitical scienceLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of the mass market as a concept ordering distinctions in urban space is investigated through newspaper reporting and promotion of early movie‐going in Toronto, 1907–1916. The analysis builds upon a revision of Chicago Sociology's text on The City, shifting the method and theoretical weight to rest more on Park's Natural History of the Newspaper than Burgess' Growth of the City. The metropolitan newspaper is both document and agent of urbanization, and is used here to describe how modernity was grounded in mass culture. The newspaper provides a sensible version of urban living for city dwellers, a map or menu of the city's rhythms and spaces. Specific to the movies, there is a shift from journalism to promotion, from trying to understand the audience to letting advertising for ever‐changing film titles stand in for the urban practice. In particular, the brief fad of serial films with accompanying stories in newspapers perhaps marks when a mass audience was first assumed. Serial films provided an umbrella text to explicitly show how the variety of spaces, times, prices, and classes of audiences encompassed a common practice, a mass practice.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCity and CommunitySame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207