Bibliographic record
Abstract
Documentary has traditionally been used and understood as a communicative tool to frame and impart knowledge about a subject matter. For Paula Rabinowitz, documentary’s “purpose is to speak and confer value on the objects it speaks about” (1994). But what other functions might documentary have if it were to draw attention to how we can also listen? Over the past twenty-five year, listening scholarship has focused on a number of domains including the public sphere (Lacey 2013), participatory democracy (Bickford 1996; Couldry 2010), and media practices (Dreher 2009). Yet, while ‘voice’ as authorship and social participation has been well theorised in documentary, there has been little scholarly attention given to how audiences listen, and what strategies creators can use to evoke different ways of listening. The possibilities for listening as an active role in documentary have further been enhanced through interactive technologies. In this presentation, I draw on my current research and practice around the possibilities for interactive and expanded documentary to promote listening as a way to attend to ethical and political questions. Listening is not a singular action, rather, it can fulfill multiple functions. I propose that practices of listening can reframe the self as collective, reveal multiple co-existing narratives, counter erasure, promote engagement with difference and destabilise a anthropocentric perspective. Drawing on frameworks which include political, non-representational and sound theory, I ground my propositions through a range of interactive and immersive documentaries from the past ten years, each of which attempts to implicate the audience in new and responsible relationships to the historical and phenomenological world.
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 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.012 |
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".