Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses a creative-critical-archival approach to construct the first British, feature-length screenplay depicting the experiences of facially-injured World War One servicemen: 'The Battalion of Dandelions.' This screenplay is an historical war drama, written in the form of a shooting script and informed by archival, filmic and theoretical studies. Its narrative is inspired by research into the experiences of a small number of the 60,500 British servicemen who suffered facial injuries during World War One. \n \nFacial injury was viewed as one of the strongest symbolic manifestations of the ‘horror’ of the Great War. A century later, this study has been conducted in the context of a British World War One film genre that has, thus far, omitted facial injury as a primary subject, and a film culture that has repeatedly reinforced disfigurement as belonging to an aesthetic of horror. 'The Battalion of Dandelions' challenges this using cinematic devices, including shot scale, focus and sound, chosen in order to encourage audience members to slow down their perceptions and reconsider their responses to techniques used to signal monstrosity. \n \nElements of trauma theory and haptic cinema are also included in The Battalion of Dandelions to encourage a stronger connection between character and viewer. 'Hiroshima mon amour' (1959) and 'A Quiet Place' (2018) are particularly strong studies in the deployment of narrative and cinematic devices to represent the unrepresentable and elicit empathy from the viewer. \n \nThe deep-rooted existence of visual prejudice is beginning to be challenged within our society. This thesis offers an original contribution to knowledge by outlining how film can play a significant part in supporting a humanised aesthetic of disfigurement, whilst filling a gap within British film culture concerning the commemoration of the facially-injured servicemen of World War One.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".