MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314697150 · doi:10.14684/wcca.8.2015.389

O DOCUMENTÁRIO ETNOGRÁFICO E SUAS VARIANTES: REVISITANDO ROBERT FLAHERTY, LENI RIEFENSTAHL E JEAN ROUCH

2015· article· pt· W2314697150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
João Eduardo Hidalgo, Rosa Simões

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and sociocultural dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupRepresentation (politics)EthnographyGermanMythologyPopulationMovie theaterIdentity (music)ArtArt historyAnthropologyHistoryVisual artsSociologyLiteratureArchaeologyPoliticsAestheticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Robert Flaherty (1884-1951) pointed his camera to Nanook, a Northern Inuit of Canada in 1921 he created without knowing the actual record for the audiovisual and also the ethnographic genre, because he framed an ethnic group. In the 1930s the German Leni Riefenstahl (1902-2003) built for Hitler a visual representation of Aryan Man Myth in Triumph of the Will (1935) and Olympia (1938) and revolutionized the language of documentary, also having an ethnic intention in mind. Investigating the social conditions of the population of Paris, with a question 'Are you happy?' Jean Rouch (1917-2004) entered the designation of 'cinema verite' in this type of documentary in 1959 and sought to show the conditions of the French colonies in their works Le maitres fous (1954) and Moi un unoir (1958). Our goal is to reflect on the legacy of the three key authors to understand the documentary such as logging and construction of an identity. Index Terms – audiovisual, ethnographic, visual representation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 topicUrban and sociocultural dynamicsFrench-language works237,207