MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046378302 · doi:10.1080/17460654.2013.783148

The grand opening of the movie theatre in the second birth of cinema

2013· article· en· W2046378302 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Popular Visual Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicVisual Culture and Art Theory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterRealmNewspaperExhibitionEntertainmentMedia studiesVisual artsParadePublicityArtHistorySociologyArt historyArchaeologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article brings Gaudreault and Marion’s framework for the ‘second birth’ of cinema into the realm of film exhibition. From the perspective of an ordinary person in the mass public, the experience of cinema is reborn daily through feature films shown at the movie theatre. Asking ‘What is a cinema?’ rather than ‘What is cinema?’, I propose that cinema’s second birth comes with the grand opening of the first moving picture theatres. For its first decade, the cinématographe was a supplement to other entertainments and social institutions. Evidence of rebirth, however, comes with the first advertised cinemas in the nickelodeon boom. I draw upon a wide survey of newspaper publicity from Ontario, Canada, including metropolitan Toronto along with smaller cities, towns, and villages. The date of the ‘second birth’ of the movie theatre varies widely across Ontario from 1906 to 1909 depending upon the size of its locality and the frequency its local newspaper was printed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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