MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023410480 · doi:10.1080/17400309.2020.1738830

The paradoxes of precarious labour in observational documentaries today

2020· article· en· W3023410480 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Meneghetti

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Review of Film and Television Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studySociologyMedia studiesArtAestheticsVisual artsGender studiesMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I examine contemporary observational filmmaking and its efforts to reconfigure the themes and style of direct cinema for a present-day actuality. I begin by revisiting the earliest works of American direct cinema, but I resituate their overriding preoccupation with self-realizing figures (musicians, actors, politicians) as a determined investigation of labour and workers. These documentaries, I argue, implicitly establish models and narrowly framed prescriptions for modern work; having been conceived within the individualized terms of direct cinema’s obsession with self-expression, the classic observational films inevitably highlight a self-directed, autonomous form of labour. As a result, the original exemplars of American direct cinema have created a durable site for the figuration of such work, and their familiar observational approach is purposely deployed in recent films such as American Movie (1999), Beauty Day (2011), and Weiner (2016). These documentaries, I maintain, provide distinctive analyses of precarious producers; or rather, they transform direct cinema’s emphasis on self-realization into a preoccupation with today’s precarious, autonomous work and its significant conundrums. In short, these films recognize the utility of an observational approach to the task of representing present-day work, and together they chronicle the grim fate of today’s new model worker.

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 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Review of Film and Television StudiesSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207