Le « troisième cinéma » au Québec : effervescence et lignes de faille
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rencontres internationales pour un nouveau cinéma sought to create a federation at the international level, by way of ensuring “an essential dialogue” and to “stimulate and make coherent [the] strategies” of everyone in both the North and the South who adhered to “Third Cinema,” under the patronage of Fernando Solanas. But this “community” was in fact quite fragile, and brought to the fore the divergences in viewpoints, practices and objectives which had so animated the milieu of Quebec cinema. Beginning with Guy Hennebelle, the ideological strife of this period has already been widely discussed, but our objective in this article is to identify the fault-lines that affected the different ways of understanding “audiovisual mediation” in the face of the “social change” such mediation referred to. We insist particularly on the uncertainty that defines notions of “public” and “collective,” as well as the role played by the introduction of video in documentary circles. We also take account in this portrait of Quebec cinema’s structural configuration, a milieu that allowed for the existence—despite these divergences—of a pluralist political cinema that was the period’s most activist, inventive and inspiring.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".