Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rotten Tomatoes est un site Internet qui rassemble des critiques de films de sources journalistiques et non professionnelles et qui offre des ressources complètes aussi bien pour l’utilisateur ordinaire que pour le mordu de cinéma. Cet article examine comment Rotten Tomatoes fonctionne comme un exemple de critique cinématographique « en ligne » dans un champ de production de la culture populaire. Rotten Tomatoes se situe aussi bien à l’intérieur du contexte d’une entreprise de critique cinématographique que dans le réseau global des conglomérats médiatiques. Je propose de considérer que l’assujettissement de la critique cinématographique aux impératifs commerciaux a pour résultat la renégociation de la fonction traditionnelle de la critique et de l’implication populaire dans les communautés de cinéphiles. Rotten Tomatoes nous fournit une étude de cas sur la façon dont le discours populaire fonctionne dans l’industrie culturelle contemporaine marquée par la convergence.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".