MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Argel, Buenos Aires, Montreal: el Comité de Cine del Tercer Mundo (1973 / 1974) / Algiers, Buenos Aires, Montreal: the Third World Cinema Committee (1973 / 1974)

2017· article· es· W2688472351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mariano Mestman

Bibliographic record

VenueSecuencias Revista de Historia del Cine · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCinema History and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El encuentro de cineastas de Argel (Argelia) en diciembre de 1973 es bien conocido en los estudios sobre el cine del Tercer Mundo. En cuanto oportunidad de intercambio y discusión, este encuentro permitió la organización del trabajo de los cineastas y focalizó el debate en tres ejes principales: la contribución del cine a los procesos de liberación nacional, la descolonización de las pantallas del Tercer Mundo y la lucha contra la «alienación cultural». El resultado más importante fue la creación del Comité de Cine del Tercer Mundo. Solo seis meses más tarde, un nuevo encuentro tuvo lugar en Buenos Aires (Argentina). Por un lado, el presente ensayo muestra cómo un proyecto político-cinematográfico (el «tercermundismo») fue tomando forma gradualmente durante esos años y destaca el rol de ambas reuniones en la promoción de esta nueva identidad político-cultural. Por otro, este trabajo también propone la necesidad de incorporar a esta historia otro evento decisivo: los Rencontres Internationales pour un Nouveau Cinema, realizados en Montreal en 1974. Poco considerado incluso por la bibliografía especializada, este encuentro puede considerarse el más importante del cine polí- tico mundial de los años sesenta y setenta. Dada la cantidad y diversidad de los participantes de Europa, Estados Unidos, África y América Latina, la conferencia de Montreal fue crucial en la constitución del diálogo entre los cineastas políticos del Primer Mundo y la tendencia tercermundista construida entre Argel y Buenos Aires.Palabras clave: Tercer Mundo, tercermundismo, Tercer Cine, Nuevo Cine Latinoamericano, Federación Panafricana de CineastasAbstract:The filmmakers meeting held in Algiers (Algeria) in December 1973 is a wellknown event among Third World Cinema´s studies. As an opportunity to exchange and discussion, this gathering organised the work of Third World filmmakers and focused the debate on three main issues: the contribution of cinema to national liberation processes, the decolonisation of Third World screens, and the fight against ‘cultural alienation’. The most important result of this meeting was the creation of the Third World Cinema Committee. Only six months after the Algiers encounter, a new gathering was held in Buenos Aires (Argentina). On the one hand, this essay shows how a cinematic-political project (a cinematic «thirdworldism») was gradually shaped during those years and highlights the role of both meetings in prompting this new cultural-political identity.On the other hand, this work also states that this account needs to incorporate another decisive encounter: the 1974 Rencontres Internationales pour un Nouveau Cinema of Montreal (Canadá). Disregarded by the bibliography on the subject, this meeting could be considered the most important event in world political cinema of sixties and seventies. Given the quantity and diverse backgrounds of the participants from Europe, US, Africa and Latin America, the Montreal conference was crucial to build up the dialogue between first world political filmmakers and the thirdworldist trend constructed between Algiers and Buenos Aires meetings.Keywords: Third World, Thirdworldism, Third Cinema, New Latin American Cinema, Panafrican Federation of Filmmakers.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecuencias Revista de Historia del CineSame topicCinema History and CriticismFrench-language works237,207