Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editors' Foreword:Digital Tools and Networks Donald Crafton (bio) and Susan Ohmer (bio) Media scholars, specialists, and those of us who engage with the materiality of film, television, and old and new media in our lives have been aware for a long time of the digitization of our endeavors. Some of us use rapidly evolving tools to teach and write; some of us use them mainly to access sources; some of us innovate those tools and curate the sources; some of us are still, figuratively speaking, trying to figure out the TV remote. This special issue of The Moving Image addresses all these constituencies. We are fortunate to have two recognized specialists in the theory and practice of digital humanities (DH) to advise us. Dimitrios Latsis teaches at the School of Image Arts of Ryerson University in Toronto. He received his PhD in film studies from the University of Iowa and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in visual data curation at the Internet Archive. Grazia Ingravalle holds a PhD in film studies from the University of St. Andrews and has been awarded a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship (2017–20) to work on her new research project about colonial archival films and contemporary archival exhibition practices. Currently she is working on a book, Curating Film History: Film Museums and Archives in the Age of New Media. We commend our guest editors for achieving their goal of assembling "a primer on some of the most significant recent developments in the fields of film history, archiving, and preservation." It is an important contribution, especially because, at this early stage of what will be a vast transformation of a discipline, few of us can say with certainty what is coming. The experts they have selected give us a few glimpses of present and future possibilities. And it's an exciting, generally optimistic view. We want to point out, though, as devil's advocate, that the discussions and [End Page vii] debates will not stop here. Arguments and observations about the unfolding crises that digitization is triggering have been aired in this journal over the past five years and will no doubt continue. The present issue gives us a concentrated snapshot of the current situation. The rapid and pervasive shift to digital technologies, the conversion of standard resources (such as trade journals and card catalogs) into searchable databases and scans, and the introduction of cutting-edge analytic tools and digital source materials described in several of our articles already have upended the field. Not only how we do our work but, moreover, the most fundamental ways of thinking about and planning how we go about doing our business have been altered. Most of the writing on DH assumes, and several studies in this issue affirm, that these digital tools and networks are progressive and welcome additions to the archivist's and scholar's arsenal. That being said, in a couple contributions, we detect traces of a dystopian cloud that hangs over the conversation. Is digitization an improvement when the new tools make the old ones and their resources obsolete or inaccessible? Or do the machines displace something quintessentially personal and insightful about archiving and scholarship? Or are online networks substituting for the physical labor of hired staff and academic researchers? Now, these questions in various iterations have persisted since the Industrial Revolution to be sure, but the speed and pervasive nature of current changes have redrawn the critical discussion in sharp focus. Technology is never pure, and the technological changes in our field predictably have an inescapable political context. Our digital world is shifting resources globally (boosting the economies of some nations and forcing reorganization in those of others). It is affecting young people's career choices and established workers' security. And it is changing the ways in which those institutions that produce, study, and present media are interacting with their constituencies, their publics, and—fundamentally—their revenue sources. In the United States—but our case is not unique—politically motivated deep cuts are being inflicted on the public funding of research, education, and cultural initiatives. Will the digitization tools and networks exemplified by the innovative and vital projects cited in this issue be nipped in...
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".