MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970806182 · doi:10.15353/kinema.vi.1298

Nabokov's Cinematic Afterlife

2013· article· en· W2970806182 on OpenAlex
Żaneta Jamrozik

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKinema A Journal for Film and Audiovisual Media · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVladimir Nabokov Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfterlifeNinthArtLiteratureTable (database)Art historyHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glancing at the title of Ewa Mazierska’ s Nabokov’ s Cinematic Afterlife one might expect a book favouring a traditional approach to adaptation studies. The title pointing to the name of Vladimir Nabokov, suggests that the writer and therefore literature occupies the centre of this study. Then, a look at the book’s table of contents may assure the reader that he or she is about to read eight essays, each focused on only one film and (as one is likely to believe) one Nabokov novel. This rule of comparison seems to be in effect until the ninth chapter titled simply Vladimir Nabokov and Jean-Luc Godard. However, more detailed examination of the contents reveals that among the first eight chapters only the last one mentions the name of Nabokov and the title of his short story, The Assistant Producer, although places it beside Triple Agent, a film written and directed by...

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.304 · 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