MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206010519 · doi:10.1353/sfs.2019.0054

James FenwickUnderstanding Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey: Representation and Interpretation

2019· article· en· W4206010519 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Fiction Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimeArtInterpretation (philosophy)Art historyMusicalIntellectRepresentation (politics)AdventureVisual artsLiteratureHistoryPhilosophyTheologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

409 BOOKS IN REVIEW engaged with the dynamics of a revived Cold War and a renewed anxiety regarding nuclear destruction. While its treatment of sf is, as noted, at times a bit hazy and decontextualized, there is little doubt that the volume makes an important contribution to the study of nuclear war in fiction and will thus be highly useful for sf scholars interested in that topic.—Rob Latham, Twentynine Palms No Human Error. James Fenwick, ed. Understanding Kubrick’s 2001:ASPACE ODYSSEY: Representation and Interpretation. Chicago: Intellect, 2018. xvii+268 pp. $93 hc. In celebration of the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey’s (1968), IMAX gave this canonical sf film a new life in summer 2018. So on a Tuesday afternoon in late August, I ventured to see it at the Cinéma Cineplex Forum in Montreal. I arrived just a few minutes late and, as I entered the theatre, discovered that Cineplex had foregone their usual 20-minute pre-show of car advertisements and trailers for upcoming blockbusters. Instead, the room was pitch black and György Ligeti’s Atmospheres (1961) blasted through the speakers. I used my phone-flashlight to locate my assigned seat; then, for the next two hours and 40 minutes, I sat transfixed by 2001’s sublime visuals, silences, and musical accompaniment. Exhibiting 2001 in this setting was perfect. While this was not my first viewing, given my comparatively small 40-inch TV I was seeing it here with fresh eyes. Two of the authors in Fenwick’s Understanding Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY begin their respective chapters with their initial encounters of the monumental film. Fenwick recalls feeling perplexed and engrossed by “The Dawn of Man” sequence and, for Rachel Walisko, 2001 was her first truly “existential experience” (183). For many of 2001’s viewers the film is undeniably a transformative experience, whether they are watching it for the first time or the tenth time. Alongside this new era of IMAX exhibition comes a new era of scholarship to which Fenwick’s collection is a valuable contribution. Partially emerging from a 2016 conference entitled Stanley Kubrick: A Retrospective, Fenwick’s Understanding Kubrick’s 2001 builds a bridge between older methodologies and interpretations of the film and new methods and research undertaken after the opening of the Stanley Kubrick Archive (held at the University of the Arts, London and the London College of Communication) in 2007. According to Fenwick, Understanding Kubrick’s 2001 “represents a wide-ranging examination from a number of standpoints about one of the most important and influential films in cinema history” (11). The volume contains six parts and twelve chapters. The chapters detail the film’s production history and narrative, assess its representations of masculinities and technology, and outline its philosophical import. They are relatively short, similarly structured, and almost all equally engaging. Most of the contributions will appeal to a general audience, as well as to curious 2001 fans and established Kubrick scholars. 410 SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES, VOLUME 46 (2019) Fenwick begins the volume by outlining the stakes of his project and situating it within the broader field of Kubrick studies. Before each section, he provides brief overviews of its chapters and some further reading. If one were to read the book cover to cover, however, beginning at the end is advised. Filippo Ulivieri, one of the leading Kubrick scholars in Italy, provides “the first systematic attempt at reconstructing the entire chronology of Kubrick’s endeavor” (204). He starts in February 1964 and Kubrick’s lunch with Columbia Pictures’ Roger Cara—here, the director pitched the idea for a “serious science-fiction film.” Ulvieri then moves through Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s collaboration on the story and Kubrick’s four years of work with dozens of crew members; he concludes with the film’s premiere and its negative reviews. While the genius behind 2001 is undeniable, Ulvieri’s chronology of the film’s production indicates that its success also hinged upon extensive and diverse collaborations. One small change to 2001 could have altered its fate entirely (e.g., Kubrick conceived several monolith designs and considered a physical alien, a prologue of scientist interviews, and a...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.252 · 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