MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894587512 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.27.1.2017-0014

Doorways to an Urban Mirage: <i>Urbanity</i> and the <i>Situated Cinema Project</i>

2018· article· fr· W2894587512 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Melanie Wilmink

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicVisual Culture and Art Theory
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesUrbanityMovie theaterArt historyPublicsVisual artsEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteure applique les études phénoménologiques, les études des performances et les études cinématographiques à l’analyse de deux projets d’exposition présentés par Melanie Wilmink. Les projets Urbanity (Calgary, 2009) et Situated Cinema Project (Toronto, 2015) sont déployés à titre d’études de cas permettant d’examiner comment les architectures cinématiques oscillent, sur le plan performatif, entre posture critique et intégration pour structurer de nouvelles formes d’expérience esthétique du spectateur. Exposées en milieux extérieurs urbains à l’intention des publics itinérants, les deux installations créent des zones liminales — aux frontières du cinéma, de la galerie et de l’espace public — où les spectateurs peuvent se livrer à une expérience artistique ludique et tactile, créant momentanément des échanges et permettant à leurs corps d’expérimenter le contact avec des images projetées, des architectures construites et le rituel du visionnement. En s’appropriant des lieux habituellement réservés à la circulation, ou à d’autres aspects de la vie publique (comme les rues, les trottoirs et les places), les cinémas mobiles rompent le fil de la vie quotidienne, induisant détournements et interactions.

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)0.002
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicVisual Culture and Art TheoryFrench-language works237,207