MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580082515 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.28.2-3.3399

The Evolution of<i>Planet of the Apes:</i>Science, Religion, and 1960s Cinema

2016· article· en· W2580082515 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy C. Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArts and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsHollywoodCensorshipMovie theaterAuthoritarianismNarrativePlanetGovernment (linguistics)Media studiesAestheticsSociologyPolitical scienceHistoryLiteratureLawPhilosophyArtArt historyDemocracyAstronomyPoliticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planet of the Apes confronts and exposes both anti-authoritarian and politically conservative attitudes to religion and its relationship to advances in science in the United States at the end of the 1960s. The film explicitly questions religion and its position within government, scientific advancement, and education while simultaneously existing as an artefact of the Judeo-Christian infused culture of post-war United States and post-censorship Hollywood. This article uses the lens of science and religion to analyze the under-researched Planet of the Apes and the transformation of its scientific narrative throughout the film's production, dissemination, and reception history from novel, to script, to screen.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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 studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207