Frame by frame: a comparative analysis of professional and amateur films of the 1939 Royal Tour of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines ten professional films and ten amateur films depicting the royal tour of Canada, the United States, and Newfoundland taken by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth in the spring of 1939. The films, held in the collections of Library and Archives Canada, come from a variety of primarily Canadian producers including provincial and federal governments, newsreel companies, local production companies, and amateurs. A shot-by-shot analysis of each film is used to quantitatively and qualitatively investigate and compare the content, cinematography, and editing styles chosen by these filmmakers, in order to understand the differences and similarities in how they experienced and recorded the tour, and what these differences and similarities reveal about the tour’s impact on Canada and Canadians. This analysis finds that the amateur films tend to show how the tour affected individuals and communities, while the professional films trace its impact on a national, political level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".