Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the introduction of software as a creative medium for animation production at the National Film Board of Canada during the 1960s and 70s. In a creative environment shaped by a strong auteur tradition, in which individual film-makers fashioned new technical set-ups as part and parcel of each new expressive work, the first system for figure based computer animation was introduced and proved out with a highly convincing demonstration film, La Faim/Hunger (1973). The techno-aesthetic frame of auteur animation conditioned the collaboration with programmer-engineers so as to sustain an already strongly embedded tradition of individual authorship. The collaborating team seamlessly distributed creative contributions between the roles of director/artist, software programmer, technical animator, and producer. The last two roles were central because they both entailed the ability of a single individual to understand both sides of the technical and artistic creative process, thereby serving as a bridge to the other two more specialized roles (artist and programmer). The collaboration in this emblematic case was a strong instance of "exact imagination", a concept here introduced to designate a close interdependency between the technical and artistic components of a creative work. A particularly valuable result of exact imagination when distributed amongst collaborators is the production of diverse outcomes -- original contributions accepted within multiple disciplinary domains. Collaborative research today will benefit from the emergent formulation of such an exact imagination, distributed across networks of differentiated creative individuals, and buttressed by enlightened institutional policies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".