MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116878294 · doi:10.7202/1000108ar

Barry Lindon démembré : la perte de l’histoire dans le film de Stanley Kubrick

2010· article· fr· W2116878294 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christopher Keep

Bibliographic record

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le film Barry Lyndon (1975) de Stanley Kubrick est peut-être l’oeuvre le moins appréciée du directeur américain. Reconnu pour sa valeur artistique, les critiques, néanmoins, condamnèrent Barry Lyndon pour l’opulence exorbitante du décor et pour « sa technique trop perfectionnée ». La présente étude propose de réexaminer l’excès de la méthode de Kubrick. Dans un premier temps, les auteurs établissent de quelle façon Kubrick s’abstient des conventions du cinéma réaliste afin de révéler l’altérité radicale du passé, et, par ailleurs, comment son obsession du détail historique finit par nous éloigner et non pas nous rapprocher du XVIIIe siècle. Étant donné cette impossibilité de re-présenter l’histoire dans la plénitude du présent, les auteurs examinent, dans un deuxième temps, comment Kubrick montre la violence du signe cinématographique. Dans Barry Lyndon, Kubrick opère une « inversion catastrophique » où la proximité de l’événement à l’écran si familière du cinéma réaliste est ressentie comme une intrusion étrange, comme une violente pénétration de l’espace.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiquesSame topicLiterature, Film, and Journalism AnalysisFrench-language works237,207