A critical analysis of US cultural policy in the global film market
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
By emphasizing contextualization between the film industry and government cultural policies in association with FTAs, this article historically examines the set of social relations and the interplay of power between the US and other countries (mainly non-western), as well as between the commercial interests of Hollywood and the critical political ideology of domestic film industries. It analyses whether the US, supported and lobbied by Hollywood, has hampered cultural diversity and sovereignty in other countries, particularly through the use of FTAs in the midst of neoliberal globalization. The article maps out how the US government has intensified its state power in the global cultural market. It articulates the consequences of FTAs in the realm of culture in several countries in order to determine the crucial influence of FTAs on domestic film and cultural markets. It is not an easy task to establish an exact correlation between FTAs and the deleterious consequences of signing FTAs for domestic film industries, therefore, the article discusses the more general, causal relationship between FTAs and consequences in domestic film industries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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