Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before discussing the subject cinemas of this paper, I think it is important to consider some general concerns on film history/histories. My own major interest is in histories or taxonomies of film style, both general and personal. I wrote my Ph.D. thesis on visual style in the early films of John Ford. Here I argued that the director, whose films are perhaps the most greatly admired (worldwide) from the Hollywood studio era, for their personal visual distinctiveness, in fact, took a long time to develop his style. He worked with a series of brilliant cinematographers and art directors at various studios, and learned from them. In fact, I suggest that the focus on directorial authorship of Hollywood films which began in earnest with the Cahiers du Cinéma group of critics in the 1950s has ultimately done a disservice to Hollywood cinematographers like Lee Garmes, Joseph August, and John Alton and art directors like Anton Grot and William Cameron Menzies whose career work may actually be more distinctive in terms of "visual style" than the "auteur" directors with whom they worked: e.g., Howard Hawks, Anthony Mann, and Michael Curtiz.1
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".