MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971115239 · doi:10.15353/kinema.vi.1009

Dogme 95 and the Reality of Fiction

2003· article· en· W2971115239 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gabriel Giralt

Bibliographic record

VenueKinema A Journal for Film and Audiovisual Media · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManifestoIllusionArtArt historyLawPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO REALITY: DOGME AND THE REALITY OF FICTION "The 'supreme' task of the decadent film-makers is to fool the audience. Is that what we are so proud of? Is that what ‘100 years' have brought us? Illusions via which emotions can be communicated? ... By the individual artist's free choice of trickery? ... To Dogme 95 the movie is not an illusion!...Dogme 95 counters the film of illusion by the presentation of an indisputable set of rules known as The Vow of Chastity." (extract from Dogme 95 manifesto) AFTER few international successes, Dogmesecretariat, the official entity responsible for issuing Dogme certificates, a guarantee that a film has been made following rigorously Dogme's "Vow of Chastity" is closed. After eight years since the group wrote its manifesto and five years since the movement brought forth its first Dogme film, the contention that "to Dogme 95...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.037
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKinema A Journal for Film and Audiovisual MediaSame topicArt History and Market AnalysisFrench-language works237,207