<i>Rapport minoritaire</i> : La dissidence fait juge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we explore the relationship between gender, judging, and the place of judicial dissent through the cinematographic treatment of the film Minority Report. We draw parallels between the structure of the judicial system and the main characters and events of the film to better understand how the idea of ‘dissent’ is represented and gendered. The exercise leads us to a consideration of the figure of the judge in relation to the film's precognitives – three beings kept in a foetal state whose task it is to transmit their visions of the future, visions that enable the prevention of murders yet to come. The precognitives can be seen, in the world of the film, to have assumed the role of judge. We see them as assuming that function in a variety of ways: first, as a type of ‘judicial-automatons’ in a system that is thought to require perfect and necessary unanimity, where the truth can be definitively known and found; alternatively, as judges in a more flexible and provisional system where the possibility of disagreement and dissent exists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".