Bibliographic record
Abstract
This edited collection treats several aspects of the mythical underpinnings of the construction of heroism in war and combat in fiction, propaganda, as well as documentary films. The discussion includes but is not limited to, the ways in which mythical motifs in war film narratives are used to justify a specific ideological position, shape the understanding of past and current military conflicts, support political agendas and institutions, and influence collective memory by providing images of heroism from past wars. In this context, the debunking of war myths is particularly relevant. The questions that inform this area include those about the process of creation of myths about heroism in war and war heroes in media, their propagation in diverse cinematic forms, and their reception among different audiences and in different historical and political contexts. Of further interest are also ways in which the myths are deconstructed in specific cinematic genres (i.e. anti-war film, comedy) or subverted by various humorous strategies (such as parody, grotesque, spoof, exaggeration, etc.) in both humorous and non-humorous genres. The authors in this volume also discuss issues related to race and gender codings of heroism and their connection to myth-making processes: establishing and questioning male heroism in combat, the heroism of women in non-combat situations but in the context of war, and the different ways of representing male and female heroes in war narratives. The volume explores mythmaking in contemporary films about the war in various national cinematographies. Scholars from the United States, Canada, Austria and England specializing in different national film traditions and genres are contributing to this volume.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".