MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W24584526

The Last Standing Bear: a documentary film on the life and work of Charles Jonkel

2010· article· en· W24584526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shannon Kelly Donahue

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mathematics Enthusiast · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentary filmWork (physics)Art historyArtVisual artsHistoryEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Last Standing Bear: The life and work of Charles Jonkel is a documentary film about Dr. Charles Jonkel, a pioneer of polar bear biology, and his contributions to science, conservation and community. Jonkel was among the first scientists to capture and handle black bears and polar bears, was instrumental in developing international conservation and management strategies for polar bears, and has influenced generations of biologists, conservationists, activists, and students through his scientific research, teaching, advocacy, and character. The Last Standing Bear attempts to interpret Jonkel’s contribution to science, conservation, and community. Using direct cinema, the film examines Jonkel’s life and work through his own words, interviews with colleagues, students, friends, and family, and archival 16mm and Super‐8 film footage of Jonkel’s polar bear research with the Canadian Wildlife Service. While Jonkel’s accomplishments are wide and varied, the film presents his life and work in relation to his affinity with the polar bear. This thesis presents the script, an analysis of the film and its process, and the opening and closing scenes of the film.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Mathematics EnthusiastSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207