‘This would be scary to any other culture … but to us it’s so cute!’ The radicalism of Fourth Cinema from<i>Tangata Whenua</i>to<i>Angry Inuk</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Articulating the concept of a Fourth Cinema, Maori filmmaker, Barry Barclay highlighted its intrinsic radical possibilities for Indigenous documentary production. Departing from Solanas and Getino’s Third Cinema theory, Barclay argues ‘that some Indigenous film artists will be interested in shaping films that sit with confidence within the First, Second and Third cinema framework’. To take this view of documentary work by Indigenous filmmakers living in geographic territories where mainstream documentary was most influenced by John Grierson’s interventions and legacy – Canada, New Zealand and Australia – recognises their presence in documentary’s radical tradition. Fourth Cinema documentaries of seemingly unchallenging ‘exteriority’ (i.e. with ‘surface features: rituals, language, posturing, décor, the use of elders, the presence of children, attitudes to land, rituals of a spirit world) are repositioned by the concept. When viewed through the ‘right pair of [Indigenous] spectacles’, their ‘interiority’ (i.e. ‘the ancient core values’ ‘outside the national orthodoxy’) is revealed. Fourth Cinema documentaries are thus not only radical when ‘documenting injustices and claiming reparations’ (Ginsburg). They also sit firmly within documentary’s radical tradition by celebrating the Indigenous – ‘making records of the lives and knowledge of elders’ (Ginsburg) offering valuable knowledge to Indigenous and settler eyes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".