Bibliographic record
Abstract
Film as a visual art form can be understandably perused as a form of “visual literature” where, under proper scrutiny, literary theories and critical concepts may be found intervening significantly. Stretching the range of “cine-literacy,” an approach to interpret films from a literary/theoretical perspective, suggests simultaneously the pervasive reach and the inter-disciplinary scope of literature. This article aims at addressing the aspects of the 1999 movie The Matrix that enable it as a congenial site for Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism to operate. There is hardly any linguistic phenomenon, verbal or non-verbal, that can negate its affiliations with the Bakhtinian theory of dialogism which affords a disentanglement of the dialogic properties operative in the phenomenon and thus attempts to excavate its philosophical roots as well as the diversity of implications. The Matrix, as a form of communicative event captured in celluloid that attempts to convey some messages to the audience, corroborates the idea further and the film indeed illustrates the ways dialogism and other Bakhtinian precepts are imbricated in the cinematized fiction. What an enumeration of Bakhtinian concepts in the movie allows is an articulation of the movie’s rich diversity of meaning and implications. The film has been approached from Bakhtin’s theoretical perspective with a view to addressing the adaptability of the filmed fiction with the central tenets of his theory of dialogism. Furthermore, a dialogical perspective of the film unearths its underlying mosaic of philosophical imbrications that ultimately endorses its intrinsic quality of multiplicity of meaning.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".