Collaborations across Cinematic Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This conversation brings practitioners together from two different milieus of media production to initiate a dialogue about documentary practices as collaborative work, understood through a reflexive lens that also attends to the power relations and social differentiations inherent within its fabrication. As such, our conversation explores how filmmaking emerges through contingent and negotiated relations between filmmakers and film subjects, different representational modalities, the archive, (recording) technology and voice; the conversation also probes how the infrastructural conditions of collaborative work shape the ever‐shifting horizons of the documentary imagination. Mediated by members of the graduate research training group on Documentary Practices, based at the Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, it features Philip Scheffner and Merle Kröger from pong, a production platform housed in Berlin, Germany, in conversation with Professor Diana Allan, a colleague of the Sensory Ethnography Lab based at Harvard University, a co‐organizer of the new Critical Media Lab at McGill University, and a Canada Research Chair in the Anthropology of Living Archives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.126 | 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 teacher head, 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".