Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws upon the work of Sylvia Wynter and W.E.B. Du Bois in order to propose that film-philosophy has historically not paid due attention to race. Drawing upon the former’s concept of “the sociogenic principle”, as well as the latter’s theories of “the colour line” and “double-consciousness”, the article argues that modernity has been constructed coterminously with whiteness, as well as a “photographic/cinematographic” logic whereby Blackness is cast into a “negative” realm. That is, while modernity might be white, more specifically it is antiblack. For film-philosophy ethically to evolve, then, it must not just pursue a dewesternising turn to the global, as suggested by various scholars, but it must also reckon with antiblackness and the role that cinema has played in constructing and reaffirming a white (and therefore antiblack) world. By this token, recent engagements with objects and animals similarly do not often consider race as a structuring concept of and for the human, in distinction to which both objects and animals supposedly exist. Indeed, one might even construe the contemporary emphasis on objects and animals among primarily white western scholars as a refusal to consider race with the critical rigour that it merits. This article goes some way towards introducing such critical rigour as developed among scholars in critical race theory, in particular Black Studies, especially Du Bois and Wynter; and it proposes that the application of such work to film will radically alter how we consider the medium. In this way, the article draws out the (white) colour of film-philosophy, and argues for a racially conscious/conscientious film-philosophy that will thus be worthy of the name.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".