MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801081757 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.9.1.55

Documenting Government: Re-examining the 1950s National Film Board Films About Citizenship

2000· article· fr· W2801081757 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Blaine Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtCitizenshipSociologyEthnologyPolitical scienceArt historyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bien que la majorité des histoires de l’ONF concluent que les années 50 ont été témoins d’un épanouissement esthétique suite au départ de John Grierson, il est nécessaire de considérer la majorité des films de cette époque en des termes se rapprochant du raisonnement gouvernemental adopté par Grierson. Cet article passe en revue les rapports que Grierson a entretenus avec les sciences sociales au cours de ses études à l’Université de Chicago au milieu des années 20 et ses liens avec l’Empire Marketing Board, de façon à brosser un tableau de sa conception de l’efficacité politique du documentaire et du genre de travail auquel le gouvernement canadien s’attendait de lui. Sur ce fond historique, l’auteur examine quelques films représentatifs des années 50 pour démontrer que l’ONF construisait à l’époque des récits sur la citoyenneté qui définissait l’identité des immigrants, des groupes ethniques et des premières nations à fin de visualiser l’amalgame national en tant qu’entité gouvernable.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207