MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008697868 · doi:10.7202/1067492ar

Film Editing, Digital Montage, and the “Ontology” of Cinema

2020· article· en· W3008697868 on OpenAlex
Marc Furstenau

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterOntologyComputer scienceFilm theoryDigital mediaTransition (genetics)MultimediaFilm studiesArtVisual artsWorld Wide WebEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers an account of the advent of digital editing, or digital montage. While reference is often made in film theory to the “ontological” effects of technological change, the term itself is rarely defined in explicit fashion. Following the philosopher Gregory Currie, the author argues that an ontological analysis cannot begin from an accounting of any putatively necessary or definitive physical aspect of the cinema as a medium. Indeed, the author argues, following Noël Carroll, that the cinema is not a “medium,” but rather an art form that employs a wide range of media. In the transition from film editing to digital montage, the means for the creation of multimedia, audiovisual cinematic compositions have been consolidated in so far as most media are now rendered in digital form, allowing for more comprehensive and fine-grained manipulations and modifications. On the basis of a more adequate account of the ontology of the cinema, this can be seen as continuous with the history of film art.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.182 · 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