MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281486340 · doi:10.32920/ifmj.v2i2.1601

Polyvocality in Interactive Documentary

2022· article· en· W4281486340 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabiola Hanna

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Film and Media Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningMemoirExposition (narrative)Reading (process)Media studiesReading aloudSociologyVisual artsArtLiteratureLinguisticsPhilosophyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Listening has always been undervalued as a mode of participation both inside and outside Media Studies (Fiumara 1995, Lacey 2013, Lipari 2014). Applying definitions of listening from philosophy, feminist political theory, media studies, and documentary studies to software studies, this paper identifies problematic practices and provides redefinitions and reframes: Listening only qualifies as listening when the listening itself has an effect or changes the listener, in the moment or later. As examples of a device of meaningful listening that might be helpful in software design, the very medium used for interactive media, the paper examines two documentary case studies: Lana Lin’s The Cancer Journals Revisited (2018) and Irene Lusztig’s Yours In Sisterhood (2018). Both filmmakers invited volunteers to read aloud on camera; in the case of Lin, the twenty-seven writers, artists, activists, health care advocates, and current and former patients she invited read Black lesbian feminist poet Audre Lorde’s classic 1980 memoir of her breast cancer experience. And in the case of Lusztig, she recruited participants in 32 different US states to read aloud and respond to a selection of letters to the editors at Ms. Magazine from the 70s covering issues of divorce, abortion, rape, discrimination, among many other feminist issues of the day. Both filmmakers also made it clear that they had invited these readings and exposed in multiple ways the mechanics of these readings. The paper argues that both reading aloud and the exposition of the request to read, as a device in the documentaries, is a form of listening and analyzes this through a framework of listening as a participatory process. The paper also identifies the paradiscourses of both projects and the relationships that the respective filmmakers hope to develop with their readers and viewers. Both projects embody a kind of participatory listening that suggests a much-needed antidote to the overlooked practice in software design that assumes listening cannot be participatory.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0220.017
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreOther

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→