Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1963, deux groupes de cinéphiles montréalais veulent fonder une cinémathèque en même temps. Le conflit entre Henri Langlois et la FIAF ne facilite pas l’harmonie entre les deux fondateurs Serge Losique et Guy L. Coté. Le premier se montre entièrement fidèle à la Cinémathèque française alors que le second demeure écartelé entre Langlois et la FIAF. En plus de ces embûches diplomatiques internationales, déterminantes au plan de l’approvisionnement en films, le contexte politique du Québec facilite et complique à la fois les choses. D’une part, le gouvernement québécois investit davantage dans la culture, de l’autre, les francophones s’affirment face aux anglophones en prenant leur place dans les institutions existantes ou en en créant de nouvelles. Le groupe de Coté, Connaissance du Cinéma, doit donc négocier son indépendance vis-à-vis du Canadian Film Institute, lui-même déjà membre provisoire de la FIAF. Sous forme d’enquête historique, cet article nous plonge dans les archives de la Cinémathèque québécoise pour mieux comprendre les premières années mouvementées et incertaines de l’institution naissante.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.001 |
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.
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".