MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314404184 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.2.1.003

Saint Cinema: The Construction of St. Francis of Assisi in Franco Zeffirelli’s <i>Brother Sun Sister Moon</i> (1972)

2002· article· en· W2314404184 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anton Karl Kozlovic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicVisual Culture and Art Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrotherSisterPietySAINTMysticismCriticismMovie theaterArtArt historyMaterialismLiteratureReligious studiesTheologyPhilosophySociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Franco Zeffirelli’s Brother Sun Sister Moon (1972) is one of the most popular and accessible biopics of St. Francis of Assisi available, and an important exemplar of the ever-burgeoning religion-and-film genre. Despite its thirty-year vintage, it is generating renewed academic interest as a legitimate form of religious expression and contemporary visual piety. This celluloid hagiography was Zeffirelli’s first movie following his disfiguring car accident and quasi-mystical recommitment to Catholicism. The critical literature was reviewed and the film explicated through the lens of humanist film criticism. Zeffirelli had constructed the medieval St. Francis as a 1960s hippie and Christ-figure with a strong autobiographical flavour. Yet, this stylistic did not greatly diminish the historical St. Francis’ passionate commitment to nature, anti-materialism and christic holiness. It was concluded that Zeffirelli had successfully repeated St. Francis’ 13th century revolutionary message for the 20th century using the popular medium of our day. Further research into film-faith dialogue was recommended.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicVisual Culture and Art TheoryFrench-language works237,207