Bibliographic record
Abstract
The four essays collected here raise a series of questions that unsettle and reconfigure some of the most persistent boundaries in studies of world cinema. In “Hollywood’s Bad Muslims: Misrepresentations and the Channeling of Racial Violence,” Imed Ben Labidi highlights the potential pitfalls of such an attempted mapping, focusing on Hollywood’s essentialized and essentializing portrayal of Muslims and Arabs. Conversely, while remaining within the confines of a small national industry, in “The Poetics of Tajik Cinema,” Sharofat Arabova transcends the implicit distortions of schematic periodization, tracing evolving traditions of film poetics across the major historical transformations of the Soviet and sovereign periods. Similarly, while feminist theory has been at the core of film studies since its inception, the two pieces in this collection complicate understandings of the construction of gender in Muslim cinemas. Sitara Thobani’s “Locating the Tawa’if Courtesan–Dancer: Cinematic Constructions of Religion and Nation” resists the impulse to understand tawa’if solely in terms of gendered spectacle, instead exploring the less examined question of this figure’s Muslim identity. In the final piece, “Defa’-e Moghaddas (The Sacred Defense), Hamdeli va Mehrvarzi (Camaraderie and Love from Knowing the Other), and the Making of Social Cinema in Post-Revolutionary Islamic Iran,” Fakhri Haghani contrasts the front-line masculinist cinema of the Iranian “sacred defense” with social dramas that reveal undertheorized gender dynamics of sacrifice and justice. Each of these pieces, then, invigorates core questions within the field of religion and popular culture by positing Muslim cinema as a point of intersection at which Muslim participation in the creation and viewing of film may productively be explored, while simultaneously offering a broader, more universal alternative perspective by attending to cinema′s functions in the quotidian lives of members of religious communities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".