MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602364883 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.24.2.96

The British Contingent in Montreal

2015· article· en· W2602364883 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael Chanan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterPoliticsFilm industryMedia studiesEntertainmentSociologyArt historyPolitical scienceEconomic historyHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The British group at the Rencontres in Montréal in 1974 included three people who represented three poles of radical film culture in the U.K. at the time. Simon Hartog represented the radical wing within the film union, the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians (ACTT), and was the researcher for the union’s report on nationalising the film industry. Nick Hart Williams represented The Other Cinema (TOC), an alternative distribution non-profit collective with a focus on political films from the Third World and political fare from Europe and the U.S. Gustav Lamche was a founding member of Cinema Action, a political collective that established particularly strong links within the trades union movement. The nationalisation plan was utopian and quietly dropped, but the growing band of independent political filmmakers, who were mostly outside the union, came together in 1976 to form the Independent Film-Makers' Association (IFA), which negotiated a Workshop Agreement with the ACTT and was recognised with slots on the new Channel Four when it started broadcasting in 1982.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0200.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.004

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicFrench Historical and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207