MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234900236 · doi:10.7202/1033335ar

Démonter/remonter le cinéma

2015· article· fr· W2234900236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raymond Bellour

Bibliographic record

VenueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le cinéma a toujours éprouvé plus ou moins le désir ou le besoin de se citer lui-même. Mais il en va autrement quand l’oeuvre entière tombe sous le coup de la citation généralisée, au gré de stratégies variées par lesquelles se retournent l’une sur l’autre les logiques du cinéma et celles de l’art contemporain. Trois oeuvres emblématiques forment en cela une sorte de paradigme, qui ouvre sur bien d’autres : 24 Hours Psycho (1993) de Douglas Gordon; Histoire(s) du cinéma (1989-1998) de Jean-Luc Godard; The Clock (2010) de Christian Marclay. Dans l’oeuvre de Gordon, le corps du film est mis à mal par la transformation dont il devient l’objet, ralenti jusqu’au paradoxe pour un spectateur mué en visiteur improbable. Mais ce geste iconoclaste s’inscrit malgré lui dans la logique épistémique qui a été celle des analystes de films. Godard, à l’opposé, conçoit une ode au cinéma comme art pensé dans son histoire et son rapport aux autres arts. Elle culmine à travers l’hommage à Hitchcock dans l’épisode Le contrôle de l’univers. Quant à Marclay, le paradoxe des vingt-quatre heures de son montage généralisé devenant le temps réel de son spectateur-visiteur réalise comme une sortie du cinéma sous couvert d’en emprunter la matière et d’en mimer le dispositif.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.007

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniquesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207