MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334167980 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.10.1.003

Forest Spirits, Giant Insects and World Trees:
The Nature Vision of Hayao Miyazaki

2005· article· en· W2334167980 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucy Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJapanese History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyAppealHarmony (color)AnimeAestheticsArt historyArtNatural (archaeology)HistoryLiteratureVisual artsPhilosophyArchaeologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is an exploration of the themes and symbols of Shinto mythology and spiritualism in the early animated feature films of Hayao Miyazaki. In his use of resonant moments of communion with nature, I argue that Miyazaki is cinematically practicing the ancient form of Shinto, which emphasised an intuitive continuity with the natural world. At the same time he is subverting Japan’s cultural myths, such as the myth of an idealised ancient Japan living in harmony with nature, as articulated by kokugaku (National Studies) scholar Moto-ori Norinaga.Miyazaki is a tremendously popular anime director in Japan and his recent film, Spirited Away (2001), won an Academy Award, illustrating his global appeal. His work transforms and reinvigorates the tenets of Shinto, and these are juxtaposed with global culture–inspiration is taken from American science fiction, Greek myths and British children’s literature–to create a hybrid “modern myth” that is accessible (in different ways) to post-industrialised audiences all over the world.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations37
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicJapanese History and CultureFrench-language works237,207