MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405075109 · doi:10.7202/1035770ar

Le remake secret : généalogie et perspectives d’une fiction théorique

2016· article· fr· W2405075109 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary art, education, critique
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article expose la construction d’un cas particulier d’hypertextualité filmique qui, sous le nom de « remake secret », entend rendre compte d’un type de réécriture indexée sur le Traumarbeit : un film source est refait par un film second qui, selon une logique onirique de condensation, de déplacement et de figurabilité, en fait apparaître la part traumatique latente ou refoulée. Inscrite dans le prolongement des travaux d’Anat Zanger (2007) et de Jean-François Buiré (2005), la notion, qui assume d’être une fiction théorique, produit de la spectature, est élaborée par l’auteure à partir des concepts de « figure » de Martin Lefebvre (1997) et de « travail du film » de Thierry Kuntzel (1975). Une étude de cas actualise le modèle : bien qu’adaptation de roman, The Grifters ( Les arnaqueurs , Stephen Frears, 1990) est analysé comme remake secret de Psycho ( Psychose , Alfred Hitchcock, 1960), reprenant en la déguisant la figure du meurtre sous la douche pour mieux rejouer et accuser, au niveau dramatique et figuratif, les complexes psychiques qui la fondent.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.268 · 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