Bibliographic record
Abstract
Where's George? (2005) Whereas George? (2005) Directed and produced by Peter Davis Villon Films www.villonfilms.com 69 minutes. Veteran documentary filmmaker Peter Davis, whose award-winning sociopolitical films have been featured on nearly every major global television network, turns his lens on the Vietnam War era with the film Where 's George? (2005). The footage for the film was shot in 1969 but edited in 2005, and it is apparent that Davis sees parallels between the Vietnam conflict and current American military operations in Iraq. Where's George focuses upon the story of soldier George Caputo who deserts from the military and seeks refuge at St. Paul's Chapel on the campus of Columbia University. Students gather to support and protect George, but when he disappears after three days, the community engages in an acrimonious debate over how to help George. The soldier is often ignored in the ensuing discussions which often focus upon George as a symbol in political discourse rather than as a flesh and blood person. For example, we learn little about George's life and background. Davis does not provide viewers with a narrator guiding our voyage through these seemingly endless and repetitive debates. We are allowed to reach our own conclusions as Davis employs the cinema verite of a Frederick Wiseman. The grainy black and white footage primarily focuses upon the intense faces of the young people, none of whom are identified, providing a sense of claustrophobia and limited options. As the debate drones on, the camera shifts its lens from speakers to authence members whose eyes almost appear to glaze over from the barrage of words. And it is interesting to note that most of those willing to take up the microphone are white males. Some speakers provi de a class analysis of the situation, asserting that supporting draft resistance would allow for a bridge to be constructed between working class youth and privileged students with college deferments. Others find this perspective to be too theoretical, arguing that how to best serve the individual deserting the military should be the primary mission. The suggestions range from smuggling the refugees to Canada via a modern underground railroad to providing attorneys and sympathetic media coverage for their plight. The return of George alters the debate. He is frustrated by the seemingly endless discourse, proclaiming that he has no intention of going to Canada and that if the authorities attempt to seize him the only alternative will be to kick ass. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.281 | 0.125 |
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".