MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159267012 · doi:10.1093/screen/hjr015

From Rennes to Toronto: anatomy of a boycott

2011· article· en· W2159267012 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Archibald, Marc L. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueScreen · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoycottTel avivDeclarationMedia studiesGovernment (linguistics)CalaisPolitical sciencePalestineThe artsCONTESTLawArt historySociologyArtHistoryPoliticsLibrary scienceAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of a new ‘Cities’ sidebar focusing on Tel Aviv provoked a fierce, divisive and highly public controversy at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). Sponsored by the Israeli government's Brand Israel campaign, the sidebar featured ten films set in Israel's administrative capital and, while none of the films was, in itself, especially controversial, the premiss – that a major international film festival would accept money directly from an Israeli government eager to promote an alternative media image to the one associated with their nation's long and controversial involvement in Palestine – elicited an angry response from a number of public figures. Endorsing what became known as the ‘Toronto Declaration’, the signatories, including Frederic Jameson, Naomi Klein, Ken Loach and Slavoj Žižek, argued that the celebration of Tel Aviv was inappropriate given Israel's widely condemned actions in the Occupied Territories, particularly the invasion of Gaza in December 2008. The Declaration stated: As members of the Canadian and international film, culture and media arts communities, we are deeply disturbed by the Toronto International Film Festival's decision to host a celebratory spotlight on Tel Aviv. We protest that TIFF, whether intentionally or not, has become complicit in the Israeli propaganda machine.1

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.005

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScreenSame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207