The Political and Economic Intervention of Non-Fiction Money Literacy Film in the Post-2008 Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur livre la première analyse critique des illustrations contemporaines de la notion d’argent dans le cinéma documentaire et en indique l’argumentaire prédominant. L’analyse porte sur des films de littératie financière comme The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World (Adrian Pennick, 2009), Money and Life (Katie Teague, 2013), Money Puzzles (Michael Chanan, 2016) et Blockchain City (Ian Kahn, 2018). Elle révèle la réflexion politique et économique qui nourrit la perspective dans laquelle la question monétaire est envisagée dans le film, la façon dont y est racontée l’histoire de l’argent et décrit son rôle dans la société après 2008, et ses conclusions plaident pour une amélioration de la performance du système monétaire. Les constructions narratives, les méthodes d’enquête, la distribution des rôles, les métaphores visuelles et auditives, et les auditoires implicites de ces films sont examinés. L’auteur emploie dans son analyse trois variables complexes qui concourent à dépeindre l’angle économique et politique de chaque œuvre : niveau de formalisme, construction de l’expertise et interprétation de la crise financière.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".