MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118520062 · doi:10.7202/1001080ar

La Lisibilité au cinéma

2011· article· fr· W2118520062 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article se propose de faire la part théorique entre la réception au cinéma et la lisibilité. Dans un premier temps, ce sont les différents sens de réception qui sont évoqués et leur contexte d’application théorique. On retient en gros une esthétique de la réception et une sociologie de la réception. À cela viendra s’opposer la lisibilité au cinéma. Il s’agit de montrer que tout film doit d’abord être lu comme un objet singulier et complexe qui ne peut être réduit à son résumé mais doit tenir compte du fonctionnement particulier de son imagerie, ce qui déjà distingue considérablement le cinéma de la littérature à laquelle ont d’abord été appliquées les théories de la réception. En ce sens, divers processus de lisibilité sont décrits de façon à restituer au film une lisibilité qui lui est propre. Ces processus s’appuient tous sur l’acte de lecture spécifique qu’oblige 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.197 · 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