The market of major film distributors in Poland in 2002-2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim/purpose -The purpose of the paper is to describe and analyse the functioning of the cinema distribution market in Poland in 2002-2018.Design/methodology/approach -The results of the quantitative research of the fifteen major film distributors operating in Poland in the analysed period are presented in the paper, together with market capacity, market share ratios and measures of market concentration.Findings -Thanks to the analysis, large distributors operating in the Polish film market are characterised.The analysis of the structure and the concentration of the sector in question shows that nowadays over half of the cinema distribution in Poland is concentrated in the hands of four companies (UIP, Kino Świat, Monolith and Disney), two of which (UIP, Disney) are foreign branches of the major American studios.Thus, the results of the research provide empirical evidence on the impact of international distribution consortia on the Polish cinematographic industry.They are similar to the existing literature findings which concern other countries (e.g.Canada, New Zealand, Western Europe).This means that Poland is part of the trend of dominance of American distributors on global domestic markets.Research implications/limitations -The paper opens a wider discussion about the Polish film distribution.Yet, the research results concern Poland and cannot be generalised to other countries.In addition, studies refer only to the cinema distribution, not taking into account other channels of distribution as DVD, VOD and online distribution.Originality/value/contribution -The cinema distribution market in Poland is still poorly recognised by researchers.The paper is a valuable addition to this research gap.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".