The Imagination at War: Visionary Poetics in Humphrey Jennings’s “I See London” and <i>London Can Take It!</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé: Cet article réévalue l’image convenue du documentariste Humphrey Jennings, passé à la postérité à titre de poète cinématographique de « la guerre du peuple ». On y étudie le contexte poétique visionnaire de son poème “ I See London”, composé pendant la guerre (1941), et de son film London Can Take It! (1940), en contextualisant leur représentation de la vie quotidienne pendant l’urgence nationale que fut le Blitz ; cette contextualisation s’appuie sur les paradoxes qui animent la poétique postsurréaliste déployée par Jennings au sujet de cette guerre du peuple. Nous défendons l’idée que l’apport le plus important de Jennings au moral de l’Angleterre pendant la guerre repose sur la manière dont il affirme la capacité collective de la population à s’adapter aux conditions de guerre totale – conditions extraordinaires qui, comme le montre le cinéaste, possèdent leurs propres éléments (extra)ordinaires de rythme et de routine. Cependant, au lieu de normaliser simplement les paradoxes de l’époque, nous suggérons ici que Jennings fait appel à l’imagination poétique afin de protéger les dimensions historiques et symboliques du mode de vie de la population, évitant ainsi de réduire celle-ci à la position d’objet cible de la destruction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".