MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517133738 · doi:10.1386/jfs.4.2.209_1

Recut and re-tuned: Fan-produced parody trailers

2016· article· en· W2517133738 on OpenAlexaff
James Deaville

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Fandom Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital Media
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrailerFandomNarrativeMusicalArtSound (geography)Sound designVisual artsPsychologyComputer scienceLiteratureAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The term ‘recut’ designates a trailer that a fan has created by editing footage from a film or trailer to new sound (voice-over, sound effects and underscore). The resulting re-imagined audio-visual text typically presents a genre-shifted narrative that intertextually relates to the source material. The ‘re-tuning’ by fan-editors involves imposing a new soundtrack (usually music and/or narration) over reordered and edited images, like the adapted family-friendly ‘Shining’ (2005) from the horror film The Shining (Kubrick, 1980) or the horror trailer refashioning of ‘Mrs. Doubtfire – Recut’ (2009). The literature about ‘vidding’ and recutting provides a foundation for considering how fans provoke new meanings when they add or re-order voice-overs, sound effects and music in recut trailers. The fan-editor must creatively engage with genre-based cinematic trailer practices and traditions of musical signification in re-imagining the source text. Thus sound effects and electronically distorted music predominate in re-tuned horror trailers, like ‘Mrs. Doubtfire – Recut’ or ‘Scary Mary Poppins’ (2006), while light-hearted melodies and instrumentation prevail when adapting source material to create a recut comedy trailer (‘The Wicker Man’ 2006). Thus the recut and re-tuned trailer represents a transformative nexus of sight and sound within fandom.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Fandom StudiesSame topicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital MediaFrench-language works237,207