The changing role of Hollywood in the global movie market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does Hollywood dominate world cinema markets with American taste, culture, and values through the exportation of films produced mainly for its domestic (US and Canada) market? Or does Hollywood supply the films that world audiences demand and, because of the logistics of distribution, screen these films first in the domestic market prior to exhibition in foreign markets? In this article, the authors empirically analyzed the global market for motion pictures to provide statistical evidence that can speak to these questions. They examined data on nearly 2, 000 films exhibited from 1997–2007, inclusive, in the United States and Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and the United Kingdom—markets that today collectively account for over 75% of worldwide cinema box-office revenue. The empirical evidence provides support for the hypothesis that the supply of Hollywood films has accommodated global demand as the relative size of the U.S. domestic market has decreased. There is no evidence that box-office success in the United States creates a contagion that spreads to other film exhibition markets; however, box-office success in international markets appears to be less uncertain for films that have been successful in their U.S. releases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".