MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291901066 · doi:10.51644/ttou8174

The Representation of Authorities in Jésus de Montréal

2022· article· en· W4291901066 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kyle R. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueConsensus · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Political scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

he film Jsus de Montral 2 was released in 1989 and is widely considered one of the greatest Qubcois (and indeed, Canadian) films of all time. This essay will examine the film's representation of authorities in contrast to the representation of authorities in the gospels. The film contrasts the various depicted authorities (e.g., the Roman Catholic Church, the police, and, to a lesser extent, the clinic) with the Roman authorities of the gospels. For the purpose of examining these contrasts and comparisons, it is essential to place the film within its particular historical context, to which writer-director Denys Arcand only alludes. Through such a lens, it becomes evident that the portrayals of Roman soldiers and political and religious leaders are juxtaposed by Arcand with today's church, the police, and, to a lesser extent, the austere clinic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConsensusSame topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207