MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W205866816

Furtive, Steady Glances: On the Emergence & Cultural Politics of Lesbian & Gay Film Festivals

2008· dissertation· en· W205866816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ger Zielinski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean history and politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianConstitutionHuman sexualityPoliticsGender studiesSociologyHomosexualityMedia studiesFilm festivalPublicsFilm studiesMovie theaterPolitical scienceArtVisual artsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation charts the emergence of lesbian and gay film festivals in the United States and Canada, their meanings and politics, through the specific discursive contexts in which the festivals are embedded. I argue that while general international film festivals operate within a very well defined network, the added categories of minority sexuality and community crucially and fundamentally change the relationship of the films screened to the festival, films and festival to audience, and the festival to any network of distribution. The aim is then to explore those changes and differences through a comparative analysis of selected film festivals organized around categories of minority sexual identities. I argue that the lesbian and gay film festival poses a unique set of histories and structures that differ significantly from the general international film festival. I situate LGBT film festivals within the institutional history of film festivals and particular social movements, and address the important issues of the constitution of counter/publics, the play of distinction and cultural capital, and urban social space. The main case studies include festivals in Montreal, New York City, San Francisco and Toronto.

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 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 score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean history and politicsFrench-language works237,207