MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281477734 · doi:10.32920/ifmj.v2i2.1560

Understanding First Person Media with India’s ElseVR Platform

2022· article· en· W4281477734 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deenaz Raisinghani

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Film and Media Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessNarrativeFilmmakingMedia studiesSociologySocial mediaInterpretation (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Visual artsAestheticsArtPolitical scienceComputer scienceMovie theaterLiteratureLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ElseVR, the non-fiction offshoot of Memesys Cultural Lab, based in Mumbai India is one of the pioneering filmmaking labs working with mixed reality in India. It has been releasing 360 video documentaries as a VR app based quarterly magazine that demands spectatorship as well as engagement by way of the subjects it chooses to talk about. In a country where severe inequities of access are present, with digital and smartphone penetration being reasonably fragmented across the country, the feasibility and acceptance of such technology on a larger level remains to be seen. What is interesting however, are the intersections between civic engagement and technology in ElseVR’s documentaries. The documentaries are not only narrative in nature, but also employ and encourage the spectator to imagine different positions while viewing them. Using the concepts proposed by Nash (2022), in making sense of first-person experience in VR documentary, the researcher employs the position of a tourist, encounter, and witness (2022:108) while viewing three documentaries using ElseVR’s technology as a medium. The three films are Nishtha Jain’s Submerged (2016); Faiza Khan’s When Land Is Lost, Do We Eat Coal (2016) and Naomi Shah and Pourush Turel’s Caste is Not a Rumour (2017). Each position leads to an understanding of the experience of what it is like to enter a space that is not one’s own. Along with the researcher’s own interpretation, and an analysis of the supporting material on the documentaries (such as publications by humanitarian organizations on the topic of the documentaries), news media reports highlighting the issues, and online community conversation received from viewers on Else VR’s Facebook and Youtube channels was conducted to make sense of the overall engagement with the documentaries besides a first-person experience. Considerations of interest and inquisitiveness towards the content, and the affordances offered by the VR environment gave way to a multi-sensory experience where the positions of tourist, encounter and witness overlapped with no conscious intent. Going back and forth with the virtual community conversation around the films and the researcher’s experience of immersion with the documentaries, it was a heightened awareness of VR technology’s role in documentary filmmaking in non-Western environments. Avoiding a technologically determinist gaze, it was the larger purpose of VR journalism that stood out to bring to light stories that deserve more civic engagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.013
Scholarly communication0.0250.011
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Film and Media Journal→Same topicCinema and Media Studies→French-language works237,207→