MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134041414 · doi:10.7202/008751ar

De l’image cinématographique aux imaginaires télévisuels

2004· article· fr· W2134041414 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Virginie Spies

Bibliographic record

VenueProtée · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSemiotics and Representation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comment parle-t-on du cinéma à la télévision ? Que disent les journaux télévisés du Festival de Cannes ? En cherchant à savoir comment le mode d’énonciation authentifiant de la télévision traite du Festival de Cannes, on s’aperçoit que ce sont les stars, non leurs films, qui intéressent. Depuis les actualités cinématographiques, qui insistaient sur les « vedettes » du grand écran, jusqu’à la « télé-réalité », qui fabrique ses propres stars, il s’agit ici de mettre en évidence les spécificités discursives de la télévision en matière de cinéma. Puisant dans le réservoir à rêves cinématographique, la télévision semble imposer des règles précises, et tenter d’inscrire dans le quotidien et le réel toute la magie du 7 e art.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtéeSame topicSemiotics and Representation StudiesFrench-language works237,207