Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accounts of the fates of film theory after 1970 often, rightly, articulate a rupture between psychoanalytic film theory and its successors, especially the “turn to affect.” This chapter describes, across this rupture, a shared intellectual problem that animates both: that of the impersonality of experience. This chapter narrates the shift (paraphrasing Eugenie Brinkema) from the episteme of the spectator to the episteme of affect by focusing on how impersonality structures both. In so doing, it emphasizes film theory’s basic project of sorting out what is personal and impersonal in our encounters with cinema; part of this project involves developing vocabulary to describe and theorize about the technical articulations and intimate structures of our horizons of experience. The history of film theory—the history of how we speak to one another about what is meaningful in movies and our experiences of them—is, then, one expression of the history of experience. Film theory both in its psychoanalytical phase and its subsequent turn toward affect remains a crucial intellectual inheritance and scholarly practice for reckoning with our present and the ways technical media structure our experience. In other words, the history of film theory since 1970 can be usefully understood as a series of schemes for articulating the intimate impersonality of our relations to technology. It is thus also a history of ways of articulating the political import of what’s personal and impersonal about experience in the cinema, and our experience with technical media more broadly.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".