British Scholarly Journals on Film Studies: Study and Evaluation of Their Internationality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United Kingdom, the journal Screen has since the 1950s been the main bibliographic source for the theorists of cinema. At the moment, there are other journals in this area which are making room for themselves in the global arena of film publications. This article studies the internationality—nowadays a key factor in the process of scientific evaluation—of sixteen British film journals as part of an ongoing research project on the evolution of criteria used to measure the quality of scientific journals in the period 2008–2012. In order to measure their level of internationality, four indicators are studied: presence in national and international databases, internationality of both editorial and scientific boards, internationality of contributions, and, finally, the existence of peer-review evaluation in the selection process of the manuscripts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.355 | 0.474 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.110 | 0.162 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".