MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910264741 · doi:10.24193/ekphrasis.20.13

Matters of Time in László Krasznahorkai’s and Béla Tarr’s Satantango

2018· article· pl· W2910264741 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Irimia

Bibliographic record

VenueEkphrasis · 2018
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNarrative Theory and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemporalityContingencyNarrativeMetaphorDanceLiteraturePerspective (graphical)Atmosphere (unit)ArtAestheticsHistoryPhilosophyVisual artsEpistemologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper attempts to draw an intermedial comparison of Lszl Krasznahorkai's 1985 novel Satantango and Bla Tarr's 1994 eponymous adaptation through the perspective of their treatment of time and narration, by reflecting upon the specificities of their respective media. The two works advance the hypothesis of a circular experience of temporality defying the linear flow of literary and cinematic discourse. Aesthetically, their approach is characterized by a strong emphasis on seemingly meaningless and bleak contingency, in an atmosphere of claustrophobic closure shaped by the dance metaphor already transparent from the title, which is also central to the structure of both the novel and its cinematic adaptation. In exploring the various cinematographic and typographic mechanisms through which the tango sequence of steps configures the imagery and the sensorial landscape of the two works, our analysis refers to a multi-modal, comparative usage of key concepts such as narrated time, narrative time and Gilles Deleuze's time-image.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEkphrasisSame topicNarrative Theory and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207