Bibliographic record
Abstract
La période de 1918 à 1930 fut témoin de l’émergence du documentaire comme pratique formellement et sémantiquement différente d’autres formes « nonfictives ». À la même époque apparaissait aussi un cinéma “expérimental” sciemment affilié aux soi-disant avant-gardes historiques. Puisque le terme persiste toujours à notre ère de postmodernisme digital, nous sommes en droit d’examiner les implications de cette persistance en rapport à l’image documentaire. Par exemple, faudrait-il développer une approche multi-temporelle des histoires et pratiques du cinéma et du documentaire? Un bon point de départ pôur explorer ces implications est l’oeuvre de Dziga Vertov, qui met en question l’opposition entre le documentaire et le cinéma expérimental et qu’on peut considérer par l’intermédiaire de la théorie des médias digitaux de Lev Manovich et du concept de « l’histoire sublime » de Frank Ankersit.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".