MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407346262 · doi:10.1177/0961463x15604517

Televisual waiting: Images of time and waiting in <i>CSI</i>

2015· article· en· W2407346262 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueTime & Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeDramaConvictionRepresentation (politics)Embodied cognitionSociologyAestheticsPsychologyCriminologyMedia studiesHistoryComputer scienceVisual artsArtLiteratureArtificial intelligenceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a massively popular crime drama, Crime Scene Investigation has circulated influential images and narratives that suggest that the processing and analysis of forensic evidence can be done in a swift and timely manner. The claim of such a CSI effect is based on the relative absence of waiting scenes within the series. This article examines the series’ multiple representations of time and waiting, linking the absence of waiting to the construction of forensic scientists as powerful figures of moral authority. In the episode Grave Danger, however, waiting is notably imagined as something that must be experienced and endured as a result of conviction. It is made analogous to death, and embodied through horizontality as well as by feminized waiters. Because the feminization of waiters also characterizes the representation of television viewers, I end by examining how the role of waiting in Crime Scene Investigation is intertwined with the viewer’s experience of watching the planned flow of network television. Ultimately, this article argues that the study of televisual waiting requires a recognition that images and narratives on network television emerge out of and depend on waiting as representation, experience, and performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime & SocietySame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207