MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063872175 · doi:10.1080/17460654.2014.925252

Subscribing to publicity: Syndicated newspaper features for moviegoing in North America, 1911–15

2014· article· en· W2063872175 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Popular Visual Culture · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperPublicityAdvertisingMedia studiesReading (process)HistorySociologyPolitical scienceLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article charts how movies were integrated into the existing popular print culture of weekend newspapers in North America between 1911 and 1915. Neither the movie theatre nor the newspaper should be given priority as the primary site of cinema culture. The practice of reading a newspaper’s film page would be incomplete without a trip to join the mass audience at a movie theatre; conversely, a moviegoer’s pleasure could be whetted by the print supplement. Early, isolated experiments in metropolitan newspapers led to syndicates offering film pages for reproduction in small town papers. With the proliferation of moving picture publicity in newspapers throughout 1913, film studios began to collaborate with newspaper syndicates on a continental scale. Movie stories appeared in daily and weekly forms in various newspapers chains, well beyond the familiar ‘serial queen’ fiction tie-in. A subscription to the newspaper could become a commitment to engage with the mass market for movies. Insofar as a public is constituted through publicity, audiences are conjoined to readerships through the periodic call to participate in mass leisure with other readers.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.226 · 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