MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320888724 · doi:10.1386/miraj.1.1.13_1

Brakhage's sour grapes, or notes on experimental cinema in the art world

2012· article· en· W2320888724 on OpenAlexaff
Erika Balsom

Bibliographic record

VenueMoving Image Review & Art Journal (MIRAJ) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterHistoricity (philosophy)ArtContemporary artAestheticsInterrogationArt historyVisual artsHistoryPerformance artLawPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the place of experimental cinema within the contemporary museum in order to challenge the commonly held assumption that it is somehow opposed to, or at least outside, the art world. Despite possessing a degree of material truth, the perceived separation between experimental cinema and the art world has led to an unfortunate lack of interrogation into the alliances and antagonisms that exist between them, particularly as they have shifted over time. This article insists on the historicity of such relationships and traces how they have changed from the 1970s to a contemporary moment that sees experimental cinema in a closer relationship to the art world than ever before. The integration of experimental fi lm into the museum is a key feature of the preoccupation with all things cinematic that has marked the art of the past two decades, prompting new questions as to the place of experimental fi lm amongst the mediums of art practice. This article assesses not the distance so often thought to exist, but rather the proximity between experimental cinema and the art world in our moment.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoving Image Review & Art Journal (MIRAJ)Same topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207