MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292822220 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.18.2.26

Rotten Tomatoes in the Field of Popular Cultural Production

2009· article· fr· W2292822220 on OpenAlex
Tamara Shepherd

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical scienceEthnologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.300 · 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