Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to understand the concept of transnational women's film, it is essential to look at transnational film theory and feminist film theory independently from one another. This article seeks to deconstruct the two theories, their independent histories, goals, and roles within the field of film theory. By doing so, the article aims to demonstrate the similarities of the two independent theories to make sense of how they form the concept of transnational women's film. This article provides a close reading and individual analysis of Higbee and Hwee Lims Concepts of Transnational Cinema and Patrice Petros's Classical Feminist Film Theory Then and (mostly) now. In doing so, conclusions can be drawn on the similarities that have led transnational film theory and feminist film theory to find a home together through transnational women's film. Analysis of both theories leads to the first discovery of their similarities in their development within academic study. Pointing at how both transnational film theory and feminist film theory found relevance as academic subjects begins the merger of transnational women's film as a relevant scholarly subject of inquiry. This article details the independent texts that state how the need for racialized and gendered thought enhanced their respective theories and impacted their development within film theory. By doing so, both authors showcase the rich histories of these theories and how they can be used to understand the diverse and impactful background of transnational women's film. Furthermore, both sets of authors detail suggestions for further scholarship in their respective areas. Pointing to how the independent transnational and feminist film theory evolved into transnational women's film theory. By engaging in an critical analysis of Higbee and Hwee Lim, and Petros detailed articles on the history of their respective fields of thought, conclusions can be drawn on how transnational film, and feminist film theory influenced the development of transnational women's film.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".