MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213773504

Audience to Allies: : Shared Terror and Cinematic Dread in Peele's Get Out (2017)

2021· article· en· W3213773504 on OpenAlexaff
Amy St. Amand

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)SociologyMedia studiesParanoiaLawAestheticsArtPsychologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For his first feature film, Jordan Peele wanted to create a horror film for black audiences, who have long been isolated by the tradition of objectification and othering of black bodies within the horror genre. Get Out (2017) highlights the paranoia that defines being black in America, but despite the film’s focus on the black American experience, Peele intended for the film to be an inclusive experience. And judging by the film’s financial and critical success, Get Out certainly resonated with a wide variety of audiences. This paper aims to explore how Peele manages to create a space of terror regarding something white viewers have never experienced firsthand, while simultaneously uncovering the purpose of involving an audience who oftentimes are the perpetrators of the microaggressions Get Out condemns. Using Julian Hanich’s theory of cinematic dread, I will argue that Peele creates a sense of shared terror that transcends racial boundaries, ultimately forcing audience members who have never experienced discrimination based on the colour of their skin into allies. Department: English Faculty Mentor: Dr. Mike Perschon

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudent Research ProceedingsSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207