MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Body Horror

2019· book-chapter· en· W4234189677 on OpenAlex
Bryan Turnock

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

VenueLiverpool University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudioMainstreamArtPopularityVisual artsLiteratureProduct (mathematics)AestheticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes Canadian film-maker David Cronenberg as one of the most highly regarded auteurs within the horror genre. During the 1970s and 1980s, from low-budget independents to high-profile studio productions, the viewing of a 'David Cronenberg film' usually promised horror audiences a unique and disturbing experience. Coinciding with advances in make up and special effects, and the rise in popularity of the artists who created them, Cronenberg's films spearheaded one of the most popular sub-genres of the 1980s in the form of 'body horror'. The chapter looks at how and why this sub-genre emerged, a product of technological, commercial, and cultural changes in the industry, and how it relates to the 'transformation' films that had gone previously. It also discusses how such a distinctive director as Cronenberg was able to produce a successful mainstream horror film (<italic>The Fly</italic>, 1986) while remaining true to his own world view, and the lasting influence of his work on the genre as a whole.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · 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