<i>New Philosophies of Film: Thinking Images</i> by <scp>sinnerbrink, robert</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
sinnerbrink, robert. New Philosophies of Film: Thinking Images. New York: Continuum, 2011, 247 pp., $100.00 cloth, $29.95 paper. As someone who has been part of the philosophy and/as/of film movement since the heady days of the David Bordwell–Noël Carroll critique of Grand Theory in the late 1980s, I want to recommend Robert Sinnerbrink's new book to all philosophers of film as well as to philosophers interested in film. It is the best overview of the debate available, and absolutely up to date. It would serve well as either a primary or secondary text in many philosophy of film courses, including graduate courses. Sinnerbrink offers a superb review of what he quite rightly calls “the philosophies of film.” He is interested in both cognitivist–analytic models in the philosophy of film (Carroll, Bordwell, Gregory Currie, Berys Gaut, and many more) and other styles of philosophy of film (notably Stanley Cavell and Gilles Deleuze). His ambition is to suggest a new way of thinking about how a philosophically invested approach to cinema can, given the right film texts, recognize what he calls “a distinctive kind of ‘cinematic thinking’” (p. 5). In his introduction, Sinnerbrink poses the question, why did philosophy go to the movies? His answer is a serious overview of the major philosophers, mostly analytic–cognitivist, but also continental, who have participated in the recent flourishing of the philosophy of film.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".