MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802312415 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.10.1.2

Patterns of Cultural Authority: The National Film Society of Canada and the Institutionalization of Film Education, 1938-1941

2001· article· fr· W2802312415 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Charles R. Acland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesInstitutionalisationPolitical scienceEthnologySociologyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le passage au domaine public de certaines activités dites privées est à l’origine des concepts qui dominent le discours actuel sur le cinéma canadien. Un cas probant est celui des rapports entre le «National Film Society of Canada», agence privée et bénévole et l’Office national du film, institution publique et subventionnée par le gouvernement. Ces rapports ont démontré la nature fragmentaire et incomplète du pouvoir hégémonique. Le NFS a grandement contribué à rendre le cinéma canadien accessible au public et dans les écoles, coordonnant souvent la distribution de films pour l’ONF. Le NFS fut aussi assisté dans ses tâches par le «Canadian Film Committee», un organisme peu connu et éphémère. Le CFC et le NFS ont aidé à introduire l’idée de l’éducation dans le discours sur le cinéma national, ce qui a mis l’emphase sur les questions de citoyenneté au détriment d’autres thèmes reliés à la culture cinématographique nationale.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations31
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207