Metropolitan vs rural cinemagoing in Flanders, 1925-75
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade we have seen a growing interest in the spatial and social conditions of the cinematic experience. This initially rather theoretical interest1 has since been translated into studies of exhibition, programming, case studies of specific cinemas and, most importantly, into oral history projects focusing on memories of cinemagoing up until the 1960s.2 Some of these oral history studies are now considered state-of-the-art examples in the understanding of social and cultural meanings of cinema.3 But as we shall show, there is more to studies of cinema culture than doing oral history. Filling the gap between textual and structural analysis and providing a bottom-up approach of lived cinema cultures, there is an active debate on what these (still fairly unusual) approaches mean for doing film or cinema history.4 In this respect, Richard Maltby makes a useful distinction between film history and cinema history, and between ‘an aesthetic history of textual relations between individuals or individual objects and the social history of a cultural institution’.5 For the latter, we need ‘detailed historical maps of cinema exhibition, telling us what cinemas were where and when’, but also ‘the inclusion of experience that will ground quantitative generalisations in the concrete particulars of microhistorical studies of local situations, effects and infrastructure’.6 This new inclusive and multilayered approach, of which this research note claims to be an example, has been coined by Maltby as the ‘new cinema history’.7
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".