MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941759994 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.27.2.2018-0015

<i>Battle of the Somme</i>: What the Audience Saw

2018· article· fr· W2941759994 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Seth Feldman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtBattleArt historyHistoryAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Bataille de la Somme ( The Battle of the Somme — Geoffrey Malins et John Benjamin — plus communément « JB » — McDowell, 1916) est un film produit par un comité, tourné par des caméramans envoyés au front pour recueillir diverses images, et monté de la manière la plus dépouillée possible par un monteur surnommé « le boucher » par les caméramans du milieu cinématographique. Le très vaste public de La Bataille de la Somme en a néanmoins fait le film documentaire le plus regardé à avoir été réalisé au cours de la Grande Guerre. Tourné aux premiers jours de la bataille de la Somme, il est sorti en salle alors que les combats, qui allaient durer quatre mois et demi, faisaient toujours rage. De l’avis de David Williams, il s’agissait là du « premier événement médiatique de l’histoire ». D’autres auteurs l’ont évoqué comme étant le premier documentaire. Que ces affirmations soient justes ou non, La Bataille de la Somme a donné naissance à un authentique public du documentaire, selon l’auteur. L’étude proposée n’est cependant pas une analyse classique d’audience — un travail déjà réalisé —, mais bien le compte rendu d’une analyse visant à déterminer comment le public a littéralement vu ce film, des repères qui sont moins apparents aujourd’hui qu’ils ne l’étaient en 1916.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.225 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207