Bibliographic record
Abstract
Film festival studies, now a well-established field of research within film and media studies, has provided, over the last fifteen years, methodologies of research and theoretical frameworks to understand festivals as a crucial component of film cultures in the world.The major lesson that film festival scholarship has taught us is that festivals are more than the films they exhibit, thus inviting researchers to shift the attention from an exclusive focus on film texts to broader conditions of circulation, exhibition, commerce, and spectatorial experience.Historiographical approaches have brought forward the unique histories of film festivals as institutions that promote cinema as a form of art and constitute a self-sufficient circuit of distribution and exhibition. 1 In particular, the theorization of film festivals as a circuit has allowed an understanding of the sociocultural and geopolitical dynamics of global cinema. 2 Moreover, from a material perspective, the festival circuit has also been analyzed as a formation "upheld by the various stakeholders-filmmakers and studios, journalists and press agents, agencies, tourists boards, cinephiles and others." 3 Finally, sociological and anthropological approaches have also invited us to consider festivals as events that, through their peculiar temporality and material conditions of exhibition, provide an exceptional experience of film viewing as well as modes of socializing. 4This last aspect is particularly important for identity-based festivals, such as queer film festivals, in which the curatorial focus of the films exhibited is as equally important as the sensuous aspect of a community coming together.In this respect, two recent monographs on queer film festivals constitute fundamental contributions to queer cinema studies in general and film festival scholarship in particular: Stuart James Richards's The Queer Film Festival: Popcorn and Politics and Antoine Damiens's LGBTQ Film Festivals: Curating Queerness.Both authors situate their research in conversation with the main tenets and approaches of film festival scholarship, while at the same time they make critical intervention in the field, developing original theoretical frameworks and methodologies.Specifically, Richards, "to address the inherent objectives of the queer film festival's social empowering capacity and financial sustainability," combines attention to organizational structures and funding mechanisms of three large international queer film festivals with an analysis of what and how films are programmed (p.14).Damiens, instead, by focusing on smaller, ephemeral, almost forgotten queer festivals in North America and Europe, puts into question the "conceptual apparatus" of film festival scholarship that "does not adequately apply to the vast majority of festivals: its theoretical and methodological tools, devised for international festivals, do not necessarily account for smaller events" (p.23).Notwithstanding the two books' different aims, approaches, and selection of objects of study, they both attest to the understanding of queer film festivals as crucial space in which historical and contemporary sexual politics and cultures are played out.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".