Introduction: Film adaptation in the post-cinematic era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, adaptation studies has emerged as a field of urgent scholarly importance and, having moved past outdated presuppositions and prejudices, has revealed adaptation as a crucial form of dialogue between and among different media, texts and social–historical contexts. The proliferation of new technologies and new media, theorized as the digital post-cinematic era, but encompassing more than what Costas Constandinides calls the ‘post-celluloid’ (2010: 3), has arguably deepened this importance, implicating adaptation in previously unconsidered cultural arenas. In their common emphasis upon post-millennial cinema, all four articles in this dossier are based in the recognition that it is no longer possible to conceive of filmic adaptation as a straightforward movement from page to screen; that therefore we must turn our attention to the role new media technologies play in processes of dialogic mediation and identity formation, in the production (and elision) of inter-subjective and cultural difference, in the shaping of cultural memory, and in the very question of defining cinema in the early twenty-first century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".