L'impact de la télévision sur les études cinématographiques en France: l'exemple de la « révolution télévisuelle » et de l'Institut de Filmologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMEL'auteur de cet article cherche a comprendre comment se sont tisses les liens entre la television et l'Association pour la Recherche Filmologique durant les annees 1950, a travers l'etude d'une partie des ecrits de l'Association, soit la Revue internationale de filmologie parue entre 1947 et 1961. L'objectif est de demontrer la maniere selon laquelle la television francaise est venue bouleverser la conception du cinema, de ses proprietes fondamentales et de ses usages potentiels qu'ont eus les tenants de l'Association. Selon l'auteur, la television aurait contribue a ouvrir de nouvelles voies de reflexion et de nouvelles voies methodologiques et a abattre certaines idees recues au sein des etudes cinematographiques. De plus, la television aurait non seulement entraine une redefinition du cinema basee sur une singularisation du medium, mais aurait egalement elargi les frontieres des etudes cinematographiques en «sortant» la theorie du cinema en dehors de la salle de projection conventionnelle. Au fin...
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".