Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteure s’intéresse à la présence accrue d’écrans de cinéma élargi dans les expositions artistiques publiques contemporaines in situ de grande envergure au Canada. Dans son analyse des travaux récents de Julie Nagam, Krzysztof Wodiczko et Lacie Kanerahtahsóhon Burning, elle se demande comment le cinéma élargi parvient à investir les spectateurs du rôle de témoins immergés d’itérations temporelles et spatiales complexes. L’auteure s’interroge sur la contribution de ces exemples de cinéma étendu, dans le contexte des expositions d’art public in situ, aux progrès d’une mise en valeur par les organisateurs des formes esthétiques de réimagination. Elle traite de la façon dont ces œuvres créent des environnements de spectacle qui se distinguent par leur liminalité, leur intermédialité et leur orientation affective, arguant que les approches affectives ouvrent l’espace de projection comme lieu potentiel de contact et d’action future pour le grand public.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".