MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898624106 · doi:10.1111/1468-0424.12408

Christine Gledhill and Julia Knight, Doing Women's Film History: Reframing Cinemas, Past and Future (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015), pp. 278. IBSN: 978‐0‐252‐08118‐7 Jane M. Gaines, Pink‐Slipped: What Happened to Women in the Silent Film Industries? (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2018), pp. 328. ISBN: 978‐0‐252‐08343‐3Erin Hill, Never Done: A History of Women's Work in Media Production (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2016), pp. 283. ISBN: 978‐0‐8135‐7486‐8Kathleen A. Feeley, Mary Pickford: Hollywood and the New Woman (Boulder: Westview Press, 2016), pp. 204. ISBN: 978‐0‐8133‐4905‐6 Therese Grisham and Julie Grossman, Ida Lupino, Director: Her Art and Resilience in Times of Transition (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2017), pp. 248. ISBN: 978‐0‐8135‐7490‐5 Julia Erhart, <i>Gendering History on Screen: Women Filmmakers and Historical Films</i> (London: I.B. Taurus, 2018), pp. 256. ISBN: 978‐1‐7845‐3528‐5

2018· article· en· W2898624106 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGender & History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnightMovie theaterArt historyGrossmanHollywoodArtMedia studiesHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.159 · 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