Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter describes the ways in which Twin Peaks employed transmedia storytelling forms to enhance its narrative world and foster active and long-term participation amongst the series’ fans. This chapter will show how transmedia expansions combined contemporary forms of merchandising with innovative forms of storytelling. As the only major serialised storyworld in David Lynch’s career, these media-industrial experiments also shed light on the work of an artist and cinematic ‘auteur’ figure who has inspired tremendous speculation amongst fans, especially in the connections between different works and across different media. Finally, by contrasting the original series with the expansions that accompanied the return of Twin Peaks a quarter century later, the chapter will shed light on changing possibilities and limitations within specific media-industrial periods. In order to map out the key transmedial connections within this rich and surprisingly diverse franchise, the chapter will first offer terminology to navigate basic forms of transmedia multitexts, before moving on to a more detailed analysis of the transmedia forms that have come to surround, enhance and enrich Twin Peaks in its different incarnations and historical periods.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".