MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W237280512 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.20.2.2

From Art House to Your House: The Distribution of Quality Cinema on Home Video

2011· article· fr· W237280512 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Herbert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtZeitgeistMovie theaterArt historyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article défend l’idée que certains distributeurs de vidéo maison ont joué un rôle important pour donner forme au déplacement historique du « cinéma de qualité » des salles de cinéma au contexte domestique. Il examine plus particulièrement la compagnie Kino International, Facets Multimedia et Zeitgeist Film pour comprendre de façon plus complète comment se créent et circulent les notions de valeur et de qualité dans le domaine de la vidéo maison. Alors que Kino International offre une sélection éclectique de films étrangers et de classiques du cinéma muet et que Facets Multimedia se spécialise dans la production internationale, le documentaire et le film pour enfants, Zeitgeist se concentre plutôt sur le documentaire et les films d’une poignée d’auteurs choisis. En dépit des différences apparentes, chaque compagnie élargie, raffine et complexifie les critères constitutifs de la vidéo maison de qualité en se fondant et en redéployant les notions d’exclusivité, d’exotisme, d’intellectualisme et d’activisme social. En défendant cette idée et en faisant aussi allusion à de nouveaux services comme le site de distribution par transit de données Mubi, cet article fait valoir l’idée que la “distribution” est un moment déterminant où la valeur économique et culturelle du produit se façonnent.

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)0.008
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207