Algorithms and the Streaming Wars: The Changing Meanings of Film and Television Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The film and television industry has been transformed by a new wave of over-the-top (OTT) video streaming services. Disney+, Apple TV Plus, NBC Universal’s Peacock, WarnerMedia’s HBO Max, and Quibi have all been released between November 12th, 2019 and May 27th, 2020, ushering in what the media has called the “Streaming Wars”. Like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, these platforms are dependent on the use of algorithms and Big Data, meaning the presence of these technologies within the industry will become increasingly pervasive, important, and unavoidable for producers and consumers alike. The purpose of this MRP is twofold: 1) to explore the current role algorithms play in the production, distribution and consumption of film and television, and to assess how these technologies are impacting broader notions of creativity and taste within the industry; and 2) to challenge the dominant critical theoretical perspectives that have emerged in regards to algorithmic cultures, namely, those contending that algorithms are replacing the fundamentally human process of cultural meaning- and decision-making. To achieve this, I explore the role algorithms play in the production and creative development of film and television, focusing my analysis on the emergence of data-driven creativity. I examine several third-party AI and analytics firms whose services automate the creative practices of ideation, script development, and casting. In addition, I examine how algorithms are changing the distribution and consumption of film and television via recommendation systems, and contribute to the existing dialogue regarding their implications on taste and taste-making. For that purpose, I apply Bucher’s (2018) method of reverse engineering to the Netflix Recommender System (NRS), revealing its circular and economic logics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".