MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535645059 · doi:10.4000/belphegor.770

Sérialité(s) et esthétique de la fiction télévisuelle

2016· article· fr· W2535645059 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

VenueBelphégor · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le propos de cet article sera de tenter de mettre en évidence les éléments caractéristiques de la sérialité des fictions plurielles de la télévision. En effet, la sérialité serait susceptible de jouer un rôle essentiel dans la relation sensible qui lie ces fictions à leurs publics, ce qui en ferait une notion centrale de leur approche esthétique. Nous montrerons en outre que si la sérialité peut se jouer au niveau de l’œuvre, du développement sériel et/ou feuilletonesque d’une matrice (c’est ce que nous nommerons la sérialité matricielle), elle peut aussi se jouer au niveau du média, non seulement au travers du développement d’un certains nombre de paramètres éditoriaux liés aux promesses de la fiction, à son rapport à l’expérience quotidienne, et à la programmation ; mais aussi dans la mesure où même les œuvres de logique éditoriale (les téléfilms unitaires ou les films de cinéma) ne peuvent échapper à une forme de contagion sérielle liée aux phénomènes de mise en module ou en paradigme (nous la nommerons sérialité éditoriale).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.181 · 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