Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose de traiter de la construction filmique du handicap afin d’appréhender le processus de rationalisation par lequel le cinéma offre aux spectateurs des figures conventionnelles intelligibles en dépit des contextes socioculturels de réception. Ces figures conventionnelles, loin de reposer sur une banale transposition du traitement social du handicap de la vie à l’écran, sont le produit de différents facteurs concomitants qui visent à construire une ressource narrative universelle et compréhensible à partir de référents communs – eux-mêmes véhiculés en partie par le monde du cinéma. Ce faisant, l’usage du handicap au cinéma définit une figure de l’infirmité spectaculaire typiquement visuelle, et qui invite du même coup le spectateur à porter un regard qui l’aide à percevoir le sens général du récit. Sans pour autant affirmer la réussite constante de ce « pari » transculturel, il est tout de même possible de retracer sur une échelle socio-historique à trois temps les différents types de perception du handicap, tels qu’ils sont conventionnellement induits par le cinéma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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".