<i>Le Fascinateur</i> and Maison de la Bonne Presse: Catholic Media for Francophone Audience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through a study of Maison de la Bonne Presse and its magazine Le Fascinateur (1903-1938), this paper sheds light on an unfamiliar aspect of France and Quebec’s intertwined cinematic traditions. Important questions are raised regarding Catholic cinema and the relationship between the Catholic Church and film. The Maison de la Bonne Presse actively participated in production (prints, magic lantern slides, films), marketing, and even in equipment manufacturing. All these activities faced competition from secular groups in France who were also involved in the film industry. The beliefs held by Maison de la Bonne Presse, as well as its productions, also existed in Quebec, where the Catholic Church was concerned with overpowering the Freemasons. As a result, the Québécois company Le Bon Cinéma National was founded in 1907. This company focused on the diffusion of moral or religious films, frequently distributing exactly the same programs as Maison de la Bonne Presse. Certain individuals demanded even stricter censorship. This paper demonstrates that within their cinematic histories, France and Quebec do indeed share a common destiny and parallel ambitions. (Abstract translated by the collective of the Leemeta Translation Agency from the original version published in 1895. Mille huit cent quatre-vingt quinze 40 (2003).)
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".