MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362600414 · doi:10.3366/jbctv.2023.0668

‘The Billings verdict’:<i>Kine Weekly</i>and the British Box Office, 1936–62

2023· article· en· W4362600414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of British Cinema and Television · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerdictBox officeRevenueQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryAdvertisingPolitical scienceEconomicsLawBusinessArchaeologyAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses the annual surveys of the British box office compiled by chief film reviewer R. H. (‘Josh’) Billings for the trade paper Kinematograph Weekly between 1936 and 1962. Billings's surveys, known as the ‘Book of Form’, came to be accepted as an authoritative guide to the performance of films at the British box office despite the absence of any actual revenue figures. The article considers how the ‘Book of Form’ was compiled and compares it to various archival sources that provide hard evidence of film revenues in Britain. It concludes that, despite some anomalies, the ‘Billings verdict’ provides a broadly accurate overall summary of the ‘winners’ at the British box office over a period of a quarter of a century.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of British Cinema and TelevisionSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207