MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W339562129

Entangled Discursivity: Women's Social Relations in a Collaborative Filmmaking Process. (Research Articles/Rapports De Recherche)

2002· article· en· W339562129 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Janice Hladki

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilmmakingSociologyHumanitiesGender studiesEthnologyMedia studiesArt historyArtMovie theater
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper raises questions about and difference as spheres of struggle. Focussing on a filmmaking of two women, I investigate difference as a matter of gendered and racialized discursive practices that shape how relations are sustained and constrained. I work with a feminist poststructuralist approach to analyze interviews with the filmmakers and to discuss the discursive repertoires that the women engage. Linking discourses of family, locality, and labour, I argue that this entanglement shapes the social relations of the filmmakers. Get article souleve des questions concernant la et la difference comme lieux de lutte. En me penchant sur la cinematographique entre deux femmes, je sonde la difference comme decoulant de pratiques discursives genrees et racialisees qui faconnent le maintien et les contraintes d'un tel rapport. Mon approche feministe et post-structuraliste sert comme fond 'analyse dentretiens avec les cinematographes et la discussion des repertoires discursifs auxquels font appels ces femmes. En faisant le lien entre les discours touchant la famille, la localite et au travail, je propose que cet enchevetrement faconne les relations sociales des cinematographes. Significances and Directions For many years in Toronto, I have produced feminist work as a writer, choreographer, and performer in theatre, performance art, video, and film. Much of this work was jointly conceived and developed with other women. My recollections of numerous collaborative projects are framed in pleasures and difficulties, upsets and exhilarations. I recall a great deal of time spent on ideas and on practicalities of production with little energy available for addressing the complex social relations of cultural production. There was so much struggle and so little attention to the hows and whys of struggle and to conflict in practices. And this was often where I would long to go. To ask: How are doing this? What is at stake for you/me/us in our practices? Why/how are struggling? What does collaborative artwork mean to you? How are social differences operative in what feels possible and impossible in our work together? Following from these urgencies, I decided to engage in a research project to investigate collaborative cultural production across difference and the ways in which contradictory, uncertain, and disputatious social relations are negotiated. In this article, I draw from the larger research project focussing on collaborations in film and theatre to discuss one particular of two women filmmakers, Shelley Niro and Anna Gronau. Difference is investigated as a matter of gendered and racialized discursive practices that organize advantages and disadvantages for differently positioned subjects. My focus on conflictual social relations is produced within the context of emphases on conflicts in feminism and on practising conflicts in feminism in a number of edited collections. (1) These works address conflicts in theory and politics, critical response, alliance-building, affiliations, and women's relations across differences. What is missing for me, however, in these texts, are the gritty and messy details of how conflict is lived, worked, resisted, embraced, and negotiated in specific relations of power and in particular arrangements at particular times. Such details are significant since we are at a socio-historic moment when contestations about what and who constitute we and about the limits of homogenizing discourses for transformative theories/politics are particularly keen. Where theories of collaboration are particularly central is in the literature about collaborative approaches to qualitative inquiry. Such approaches include critical action research, participatory research, feminist collaborative research, activist research and empowerment and emancipatory research. (2) Discourses of in such research approaches most often emphasize the unity in community, notions of giving voice and empowerment, a normalization of hannony, and regulative ideals of collaborative interaction. …

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0200.036
Scholarly communication0.0230.012
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.062 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207