Technique/Discourse: When Bergson Invented His Cinematograph
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
The “cinematographic model of thought” was developed by Bergson in Creative Evolution (1907) after his 1902-1903 lectures at the Collège de France. His appropriation of this device of modernity certainly didn't go unnoticed. Throughout the twentieth century, Bergsonian discourse produced frequently opposing positions on the cinema, making it necessary for the film historian to question the status of Bergson’s cinematographic dispositive. This dispositive, which strictly belongs to philosophical discourse, refers to equipment and procedures whose mechanism is quite recognizable and isn’t solely confined to the device invented by Lumière. Scholars thus need to confront the technical dimension of this dispositive if they are to examine its very singular character. What makes Bergson’s dispositive technical? How does the shift occur from the technical reference to its appropriation by discourse in demonstrative strategies that transform its value? Starting from this case study, this article seeks to address the following question as directly as possible : what does technique become once it enters (philosophical) discourse? Borrowing from the history of techniques outside the specialized literature on cinema, the article also attempts to redefine the web of relations between discourse and technical fact. Finally, it raises the issue of what may be called a user discourse with respect to specialized discourse, emphasizing the predisposition of any discourse for an osmosis of concepts which the epistemology of viewing dispositives can account for.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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