Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the surface of the world is envisaged as a face. Cinema as a record of this surface, and as a medium which “re-invented” the face in the close-up shot, makes it possible to reflect on the status of the human subject in the universe, thanks to the concept of cinematic pantheism. Following Elie Faure, the author underscores the pantheistic nature of cinema and claims that cinematic pantheism is the way by which film produces simultaneously transcendence and immanence, and materializes the unity of both, thus confirming Siegfried Kracauer's theory according to which man, nature and culture are part of the same “visible phenomena” in cinema. Cinema transforms all beings into surfaces: it operates by facialization and surfacialization. On the other hand, the article revisits Deleuze and Guattari's concept of faciality and argues that it describes a surface operating as the interface of the body in its interaction with other bodies in the media, the realm of the divine, or the universe. Thus faciality is also landscapity, and activating the camera means “transfiguring” the human (or the landscape) into face and introducing a vis-a-vis: the face of God, as immanent transcendence. In that sense, cinematic mysticism, as in Paradjanov's, Makhmalbaf's and Mikhalkov's films, is pantheistic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".