Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historicizing CensorshipUntil the Ontario Board of Censors first discovered experimental film and video in 1981, in part inciting the censor wars, the provincial government had not laid a single charge under the Theatres and Cinematographers Act of 1911 or the Theatres Act of 1953 during that seventy-year period.What were the circumstances leading to this rupture?Were the censor wars merely a hitch in censorship's otherwise smooth ride through history, progressing toward liberalization?In this chapter, I trace the evolving rationalities in administrative logics of the Ontario Film Review Board (OFRB, 1985-2015) and of its former incarnation as the Ontario Censor Board (OCB, 1911-85) to trouble its seemingly coherent progression toward liberalization, which the Ontario Film Authority's (OFA) website describes as an evolution from acting on "extensive powers" to promoting a mandate "directed less at censorship and more towards classification." 1 Indeed, in Ontario between 1911 and the late 1970s, censorship policies underwent many changes.Regarding the range of filmic subjects it had the power to cut or ban, former vice-chair of the board George Belcher said in 1985, "In the old days, I can remember that if a girl's navel was exposed, that was cut.Now today, you see everything that is possible to be seen.This is the whole feature of censorship: you must go along with the times, you can't live in the past, and you can't be too far ahead of the public." 2 This kind of rhetoric around the history of censorship is typical to the view that it is propelled by a symmetrical progression toward "permissiveness." In 1985
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| 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".