MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323231080 · doi:10.1386/ap3.1.2.285_1

The anamorphic cinema

2012· article· en· W2323231080 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alison Reiko Loader

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimation Practice Process & Production · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterNarrativeSituatedVisual artsWitnessExhibitionContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)SociologyAestheticsArtHistoryLiteratureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The anamorphic cinema is a research/creation project that proposes new ways to engage with moving images by applying digital imaging and animation to catoptric anamorphosis, a perspectival technique from the seventeenth century that deforms pictures so they appear to re-form in the reflection of a curvilinear mirror. Culminating in Ghost in the Machine: The Inquest of Mary Gallagher, a looping fifteen- minute, site-specific video installation investigating the culpability of a working class woman in the 1879 murder and beheading of another, this project problematizes representation as re-presentation. Dramatic performances of witness testimonies and newspaper texts, layered with diverse archival images form a network of narratives that revise the case within a context of nineteenth-century spectatorship, visual culture and disciplinary discourses. Made for exhibition in the historic Montreal neighbourhood called Griffintown, the location where the events it depicts took place, Ghosts emplaces and embodies multi-perspectival views, encouraging mobile spectatorship and passive interaction. Audience members cannot alter the work directly but their experiences are dependent on their relative positions and angles of view. The anamorphic cinema literally re-presents partial perspective and situated knowledge, materializing theory into phenomenological practice.

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 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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimation Practice Process & ProductionSame topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207