Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis la montée du mouvement #Moiaussi en 2017, les institutions cinématographiques à vocation « patrimoniales » se sont mobilisées pour valoriser leurs collections autour des cinéastes et vidéastes féministes. Aujourd’hui, un état des lieux des collections vidéo nous permet de constater l’importance des fonds d’archives consacrés aux enjeux féministes à Montréal. En revanche, que connaissons-nous des pratiques vidéographiques féministes développées dans le reste du Québec ? La rareté des sources nous incite à nous pencher sur le sujet en prenant un exemple précis. Dès 1973, la ville de Québec fut témoin de l’émergence d’un collectif féministe important, qui exista pendant plus de quarante années. Dans une perspective historiographique, le présent article propose de s’interroger sur les débuts du médium vidéo et de retranscrire les premières années d’un collectif féministe peu exploré : Vidéo Femmes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
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".