MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037305205 · doi:10.7202/1006729ar

Vraie fiction et faux documents

2011· article· fr· W2037305205 on OpenAlex
Samuel Archibald

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProtée · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtNothingArt historyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objectif de cet article est d’opérer une lecture au-dedans et au-dehors de la fiction mise en place par le cinéaste Brian Flemming dans son documentaire Nothing So Strange (GMD Studios, 2002), ainsi que dans les documents d’archive et les artéfacts web produits en son sillage. L’univers Nothing So Strange s’attache à décrire l’un des événements historiques les plus importants à n’avoir pas eu lieu au xx e siècle : l’assassinat du président de Microsoft Bill Gates. Nous tenterons de voir comment une grande oeuvre participative (au sens de Jenkins) s’est développée à partir du film de Flemming, témoignage hyperréaliste issu d’un univers parallèle ; comment cinéastes, spectateurs et internautes ont détourné la capacité documentaire de l’archive filmique et numérique afin de se réapproprier la figure historique du complot meurtrier et fournir à la fiction un grand déploiement tentaculaire. Nous interrogerons également les enjeux éthiques et esthétiques de cette stratégie, que Flemming lui-même qualifie de piratage de la réalité («reality-hacking»).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.450
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.104 · 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