MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213283759 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2022.2028246

Screen Zombies, Alien Settlers, and Colonial Legacies

2022· article· en· W4213283759 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darrell Varga

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsNSCAD University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilmmakingMovie theaterColonialismIndigenousFilm directorMedia studiesGenocideSociologyTrilogyFantasyHistoryLawArt historyPolitical scienceLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You Are On Indian Land, a Challenge for Change documentary shot during a border-crossing blockade on Akwesasne territory (near Cornwall, Ontario) in 1969, helped interrupt the colonial legacy of Canadian cinema. Since then, activism in defense of Wet’suwet’en struggles to protect unceded territory, including remarkable uses of video and social media, carry on the transformative spark of this and other Indigenous films. Until recently, Indigenous filmmaking in Canada has mostly been relegated to informational and documentary programming because this is the genre sanctioned by colonial institutions. The commercial success of Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001), disrupted this gatekeeping, and the release of Mi’kmaq filmmaker Jeff Barnaby’s Rhymes for Young Ghouls (2013) and Blood Quantum (2019) completely shattered the imposed barrier. Barnaby’s films are about the crimes of colonialism inflected through the zombie-horror and revenge-fantasy genres. This article weaves together these formative moments of Canadian documentary and fiction filmmaking with respect to issues of justice, land claims, and visual sovereignty, raising the question of what it means to represent Indigenous social struggles in popular film genres and what they say about the concept of Canadian identity.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207