MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021108922 · doi:10.1093/ssjj/jyi025

The Imperial Screen: Japanese Film Culture in the Fifteen Years’ War 1931–1945 , by Peter B. High. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2003, 544 pp., $60.00 (hardback ISBN 0299181308), $24.95 (paperback ISBN 0299181340)

2005· article· en· W2021108922 on OpenAlexaff
Mitsuyo Wada-Marciano

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Japan Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHong Kong and Taiwan Politics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterArt historyMedia studiesHistoryTone (literature)PoliticsPerformance artArtSociologyLiteraturePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is a cause for celebration that we finally have Peter B. High’s book on wartime Japanese cinema translated to English, nearly ten years after the original Teikoku no Ginmaku (1995) was published. Signaling the prominent recognition accorded High’s book in US film studies, The Imperial Screen received the Katherine Singer Kovacs Book Award at the 2004 Society for Cinema and Media Studies (SCMS) annual conference. In the formidable task of translation, the first couple of chapters were extensively rewritten and reorganized; however, the book’s main themes and its overall tone have remained intact. The book’s back cover lists four key words: film, Japan, Asian history and World War II. As these words indicate, the book manages the crossover of the disciplines of film studies, Japan studies and history. The author’s wide-ranging academic background and interests (he studied politics, Japanese literature, American literature, and has been teaching film and English)...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science Japan JournalSame topicHong Kong and Taiwan PoliticsFrench-language works237,207