Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compares censorship’s distinct and varying profiles across five different national contexts - U.S.A., Britain, Canada, Australia and France Historical analysis of causes and consequences of the transition away from formal censor boards and toward current practices of classification and ratings Detailed textual analysis of the relevant films to contextualize and evaluate rhetorical arguments put forth against them in controversial public receptions Draws parallels between the rhetorical practices of censors, and those of the critics, distributors, and advertisers that have assumed the social control of film culture Film Regulation in a Cultural Context examines cinematic works that provoked censorious impulses throughout the shift away from formal film censorship in the late modern West. The public controversies surrounding Fat Girl , Irreìversible , Ken Park , The Brown Bunny , Wolf Creek and Welcome to New York , each highlight significant stages in this cultural shift, which necessitated policy revision within Britain, Canada and Australia’s institutions of film censorship. Sacco draws parallels and distinctions between governmental film regulation policies and the social control mechanisms at work within a wider network of institutions, including news media, film festivals and advocacy groups. He examines the means by, and ends to which the social control of film content persists in a national ‘post-censorship’ media landscape, and how concepts of film ‘classification’ manifest in commercial market contexts, journalistic criticism and practices of distribution and advertising.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".