MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344002375 · doi:10.4000/map.2081

De quelques problèmes épistémologiques dans la théorie du cinéma

2016· article· fr· W2344002375 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueMise au point · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À la lumière de récents débats en études cinématographiques quant à la nature de la théorie du cinéma et des savoirs qu’elle est en mesure de produire, nous considérons certaines des positions épistémologiques mises de l’avant par des théoriciens du cinéma. Plus précisément, nous examinons les positions ‘dualistes’ qui opposent des auteurs comme Noël Carroll et Malcolm Turvey et proposons une ‘troisième’ voie en faisant appel à la philosophie pragmatiste de C. S. Peirce.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.092
Scholarly communication0.0220.049
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMise au pointSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207