MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056044858 · doi:10.7202/1015713ar

Movie Palaces on Canadian Downtown Main Streets: Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver

2013· article· en· W2056044858 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Paul S. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsVancouver Biotech (Canada)
FundersYork UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsDowntownNightlifeVisual artsPavilionAmusementMedia studiesFavouriteAdvertisingHistoryArtArt historySociologyArchaeologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of movie palaces is traced for St. Catherine Street in Montreal, Yonge Street in Toronto, and Granville Street in Vancouver. Beginning in 1896, film shows were included in a range of urban amusement places. When dedicated movie theatres opened by 1906, they were quickly built throughout the city before the downtown "theatre districts" became well defined. Not until about 1920 were first-run vaudeville-movie palaces at the top of a spatial hierarchy of urban film-going, lasting into the 1950s. After outlining the formation of movie palace film-going, the paper notes how the downtown theatres were next to each city's major department store. A theoretical analysis of how amusement and consumption make "being downtown" significant in everyday urban life follows. A review of the social uses of electric lighting and urban amusements finds that movie palace marquees become a symbol for the organization of downtown crowds and consumers into attentive mass audiences. A brief account of the decline of the movie palace, from the 1970s to 2000, concludes by reviewing the outcomes of replacement by multiplex theatres, demolition, or preservation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.014
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207