MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212770705 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2022.2028251

Hallmark’s Happy Crime Films

2022· article· en· W4212770705 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Braithwaite

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrime and Detective Fiction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologyArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article highlights the significance of the crime genre to the resurgence of the made-for-TV-movie, especially the Hallmark Channel’s romance movies. Typical assessments of Hallmark movies as brimming with positive affect encourage us to take a closer look at the representational strategies that make such happiness possible in stories otherwise concerned with violence and death. I draw upon theories of melodrama and film to identify which experiences are considered common or shared in these predominantly white, upper-class worlds, and how they create an orientation against which guilt and justice are determined. I also situate these made-for-TV-movies in relation to discussions about the status of filmmaking in Canada, as examples of the distinct shift in emphasis in Canadian cultural policy that now sees cultural texts as products and prioritizes commercially viable—and internationally desirable—media (as distinct from “national cinema”). I combine these critical perspectives to track the ways in which Hallmark combines high body counts, low violence, and often White homogeneity into happy crime films—and what the mass production of them tells us about the present and future of filmmaking in Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicCrime and Detective Fiction StudiesFrench-language works237,207