Émergence de la critique de cinéma dans la presse populaire québécoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the last 50 years, it has been common to write about how Quebec cinema was born around the 1960s with cinéma direct. To do so, however, is to neglect the 60 preceding years and the important pioneers, such as L.-E Ouimet, J.-A Hormier or Albert Tessier. Historians of Quebec cinema have thought and continue to think that a film criticism worthy of the name didn’t appear until the end of the 1950s, via ciné-clubs and the magazines that they launched. However, as early as the 1920s popular Quebec publications had popular-culture critics who were interested in cinema and contributed to the development of a fully competent criticism along the lines of a model borrowed from their Parisian and American colleagues, whose judgements they knew very well. This all therefore occurred via a distinctive model, Quebec film criticism having emerged from and being consolidated in popular journals far before it the appearance of cinephile magazines. In France and elsewhere, for instance, criticism developed in specialised, cooperative or cinéphile magazines. The enlarged history of this emergent Quebec criticism constituted an interesting contribution not only to the history of Quebec cinema but also to a general history of film criticism, which is surprisingly understudied. This article seeks to begin such work by studying film criticism in a daily newspaper from Quebec in the 1920s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".