Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores interactive documentary production's power dynamics and knowledge-making practices through the ethnographic case study of Christoph, a white media scientist and trained film editor from a Western European country. Christoph's research project, conducted as part of an international and multidisciplinary team, dealt with discourses surrounding a specific restitution case in an African country. The study focuses on Christoph's use of the Korsakow software to create an interactive documentary, examining the complexities he encountered in the field and his efforts to represent them in a powercritical manner. Throughout the production process, Christoph attempted to address power relations by making himself visible in the documentary and ensuring that his authorial influence remained minimal during the film's assembly. He employed a two-fold strategy that included acquiring shaky footage without a tripod and utilizing materials that might be deemed unusable in traditional production environments. Christoph's use of Korsakow as a tool for assembling his interactive documentary served to represent the complexities he found in the field. Despite Christoph's powercritical aspirations, he acknowledged the potential bias inherent in the keywording process, stressing the importance of actively pursuing powercritique as a practice. Korsakow, as an interactive and nonlinear tool, offered an experimental environment in which Christoph could explore alternative ways of filmmaking and knowledge-making. This environment facilitated the development of open, complex, and messy practices, challenging conventional filmmaking norms. This case study raises questions about the knowledge-making practices found in interactive documentaries and how they can inform visual research methodologies. Further research may delve into the methodological implications of these findings and the potential for interactive documentary software to serve as a laboratory for experimental filmmaking practices. By examining Christoph's use of Korsakow and his efforts to navigate power dynamics in creating an interactive documentary, this paper contributes to the broader understanding of knowledge-making in non-linear and interactive film environments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".