MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071156360 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.11.1.004

“Passion Tickets Bear Mark of Beast!” Otherworldly Realism, Religious Authority and Popular Film

2005· article· en· W2071156360 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diana Walsh-Pasulka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia, Religion, Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionRealismScholarshipFolkloreFantasyAestheticsArtIconFilm genreLiteratureEveryday lifeMovie theaterPhilosophyEpistemologyLawPsychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the scholarship that examines the connections between film and religion is based on the assumption that there is a clear distinction between film reality and the reality of everyday life. In other words, viewers suspend their belief structures while enjoying a film about the supernatural, but they always maintain a conscious separation between the film and reality. This assumption is complicated when considering the urban legends and stories surrounding films like The Exorcist and The Passion of the Christ. The discourse that surrounds these films, the urban legends, tales and folklore, reveal a realism with respect to the supernatural and religion that defies the assumption of the film’s status as fantasy. They literally bring the supernatural to life. In this way, they blur the assumed boundary between film reality and ordinary reality. In this sense they function much like a religious icon as used in popular devotional practices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicMedia, Religion, Digital CommunicationFrench-language works237,207