T.O. Live with Film: The Toronto International Film Festival and Municipal Cultural Policy in Contemporary Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Devant la croissance importante de l’industrie du cinéma et de l’audiovisuel dans l’économie postindustrielle de Toronto, la ville a encouragé le développement de la culture dorénavant considérée comme un moteur économique potentiel. Par la lecture minutieuse de rapports à propos des politiques clés et des discours qui les ont entourées, cet article suit l’évolution de l’instrumentalisme dominant les politiques culturelles municipales depuis les années 1970, pour soutenir que ce rapprochement entre la culture et l’économie a permis aux responsables politiques de redéfinir l’idée de culture pour faciliter le support gouvernemental direct au films et aux productions audiovisuelles. Cet article se penche spécifiquement sur la TIFF Bell Lightbox, nouvelle résidence permanente du Festival international du film de Toronto, en montrant comment la rhétorique de la croissance économique a pénétré le discours culturel au point où la valeur d’un organisme culturel est maintenant largement mesurée en fonction de son impact économique.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".