Le cinéma québécois par ceux qui le font : Discussions avec Érik Canuel, Catherine Martin, Charles-Olivier Michaud, Noël Mitrani, Kim Nguyen et Rafaël Ouellet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martin Gignac et Jean-Marie Lanlo posent à six cinéastes représentatifs de la diversité du cinéma québécois actuel une même question : « Quel regard portez-vous sur le cinéma québécois ? » Érik Canuel, Catherine Martin, Charles-Olivier Michaud, Noël Mitrani, Kim Nguyen et Rafaël Ouellet s'expriment sincèrement et sans concessions sur un art et un milieu qu'ils connaissent parfaitement. Les discussions abordent plusieurs thèmes (forces, faiblesses, cinéphilie, formation, etc.) et montrent à quel point notre cinéma est plus complexe que ne le laissent croire les quelques échos qui filtrent dans les médias.Grâce à ces échanges vivants et francs, Martin Gignac et Jean-Marie Lanlo convient le lecteur à participer virtuellement au débat en lui donnant accès à des points de vue tour à tour complémentaires et contradictoires. Par-dessus tout, les auteurs espèrent que la lecture de leur ouvrage donnera envie au lecteur d'aller à la rencontre de films trop souvent désertés par le public. (source éditeur)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".