MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130024714 · doi:10.30958/ajmmc.7-2-1

Cartoon Films: Made in India, How do they Fare?

2021· article· en· W3130024714 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mangesh Bedekar, Prachi M. Joshi

Bibliographic record

VenueAthens Journal of Mass Media and Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntertainmentAdvertisingCharacter (mathematics)Media studiesSociologyPsychologyArtVisual artsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cartoons, these days have become an integral part of every child’s childhood. They are amongst the most prominent forms of entertainment for children. With the advent of the nuclear family and single child families, with no mate/partner to interact, play or learn from, it is with the help of cartoons that kids are exposed to the various facets of the world around us. Cartoon films screened on most TV sets in Indian homes were majorly dubbed versions of successful cartoon films from USA, Japan, Canada, etc. From around 2003 onwards, some Indian cartoons started to appear on TV especially after the Cable TV came to Indian homes. This paper looks at the cartoons, which are made in India, made for India, and their co-relations with the cartoons which are otherwise screened on Indian TV sets, which are dubbed versions of cartoon films from around the world. These Indian cartoons are analysed and correlated with each other based on various attributes namely, the locale, the age of the protagonist, number of episodes, number of character in the movie, gender ratio, etc. The observations and conclusions done in this study are enlisted and presented. Keywords: cartoon films, children’s television, comparative analysis, gender stereotypes, social science research

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAthens Journal of Mass Media and CommunicationsSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207