Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article responds to a series of questions posed by Francesco Casetti to “Impact” conference panelists dealing with the fate of apparatus theory in film studies. I argue that the unravelling of apparatus theory has been a long, complex process, unfolding over four decades. A well-known feature of this unravelling within English-language film studies has been the assertion that spectators/subjects are not formal products of the functioning of an apparatus, but rather embodied individuals characterized by multiple forms of identity. This assertion has helped to detach the study of film spectatorship from theories of the apparatus, rendering the former more empirical and sociological. At the same time, difficulties in translation have resulted in a confusion, in English-language film scholarship, between the French terms appareil and dispositif , both of which have found themselves translated as “apparatus”. Drawing on the writings of Agamben and Vouilloux, I show how a key problem in apparatus theory is the extent to which the forces shaping spectator identity are themselves part of an apparatus or might be seen as external to the latter and as historical variables with which an apparatus interacts.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".