MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754929579 · doi:10.1525/fmh.2015.1.4.89

Voicing Dissonance

2015· article· en· W2754929579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shana MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Media Histories · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Politics, and Modernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive dissonanceFilm directorSubjectivityAestheticsRepresentation (politics)DialecticPoliticsSociologyImmediacyVoiceArtVisual artsPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceMovie theaterLinguisticsPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how sound was used as an effective tool of formal resistance in the work of influential feminist filmmakers, Carolee Schneemann (United States), Gunvor Nelson (Sweden), and Joyce Wieland (Canada). While their work differs in both aesthetic approach and thematics, their strategic use of sound as a point of disruption within their early films set an important standard for future feminist experimental film practice. The article outlines how each filmmaker constructed a dialectical relationship between image and sound that often challenged viewers. Each produced defamiliarized landscapes out of domestic spaces commonly overcoded by gendered systems of representation, including the kitchen, the home, and the garden. Furthermore, each film offered alternative forms for articulating women's subjectivity that challenged the roles made available to them during the 1960s. Through close readings of Wieland's film Water Sark (1965), Schneemann's film Plumb Line (1968–71), and Nelson's film My Name Is Oona (1969), the article demonstrates how each artist advanced a critical politics through sound-image dissonance.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminist Media HistoriesSame topicArt, Politics, and ModernismFrench-language works237,207