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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Film festivals have become an increasingly important area for film scholars. An expanding field of scholarship on film distribution and exhibition, cultural policy formulation and media industries at national and international level has made it increasingly important to investigate the role played by annual festivals that exhibit films for both public and industry audiences. Since the pioneering work of Bill Nichols, researchers have come to recognize that film festivals are not just an adjunct to other activities but a phenomenon in their own right.1 While interlocking with a number of important areas of cinema both culturally and industrially, film festivals possess their own economies, social economic drivers, professional and political dynamics, and agendas. Following Nichols, Daniel Dayan, in his seminal anthropological study of Sundance, has characterized festivals as serving distinct groups with diverse interests, while Julian Stringer has developed a series of theoretical approaches to festival studies that has given shape to much subsequent debate around the national versus the international role of these events.2 Multidisciplinary approaches, encompassing socioeconomics, textual studies, historiography and anthropology, are a feature of these early works and of the subsequent scholarship. With film festivals proliferating at an extraordinary rate – a report commissioned by former director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival Hannah McGill, who reflects on her experiences in this dossier, found that somewhere in the world a film festival opens every thirty-six hours – there is no shortage of cases available for study.3
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it