Bibliographic record
Abstract
S’agissant de reconsidérer la question du montage à partir des champs d’application de cette notion dans l’épistéméde la fin duxixe-début duxxesiècle — dont participent les divers phénomènes de l’image successive et animée —, cet article propose de ne pas se situer à l’intérieur d’un champ, celui ducinématographe, qui disposerait de sa « spécificité » ou qui travaillerait délibérément ou souterrainement à la construire. Il préconise de distinguer le discours technico-esthétique sur le montage et le discours « prescriptif » de la critique ou de la théorie du cinéma, afin de construire un niveauépistémographiqueconsistant à cerner les champs d’application des concepts et des règles d’usage concernant le montage, leurs transformations et leurs variations, dans le but de les rapporter à leurs conditions de possibilité. Ce début d’analyse s’attachera à quelques notions à l’oeuvre dans la dimension opérative du montage : la « mécanicité », la discontinuité, la superposition.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".