MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391332404 · doi:10.3138/cjfs-2023-0015

Documenting the Anthropocene: The Burtynsky Trilogy

2023· article· fr· W4391332404 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christie Milliken

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrilogyArtLiteratureAestheticsVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé : Le présent article tient compte des questions d’échelle et d’amplitude dans la trilogie Paysages manufacturés ( Manufactured Landscape, 2006), L’empreinte de l’eau ( Watermark, 2013) et Anthropocène : l’époque humaine ( Anthropocene: The Human Epoch, 2018), qui est le fruit d’une collaboration productive et provocative entre la documentariste Jennifer Baichwal et le photographe paysagiste de renommée internationale Edward Burtynsky. Les trois films participent fortement à ce qui a été qualifié d’imagerie sublime « toxique » ou « industrielle » des photos grand format de Burtynsky et décrit à la fois d’immersif, de poétique et de lent. Par l’exploration des diverses évocations d’échelles et d’amplitudes dans la trilogie, qui sont des préoccupations au cœur de l’œuvre photographique de Burtynsky, l’article s’attaque à l’intervalle géologique qu’on appelle l’anthropocène et à son adoption embourbée dans le dernier film de la trilogie. Plutôt qu’accepter sans problème « la thèse anthropocène » telle qu’elle est définie et visualisée dans L’époque humaine, l’article épouse — conformément aux critiques du terme — un point de vue plus nuancé de ce que cette définition permet et dissimule à l’égard de la production et des politiques de la culture visuelle de ces films.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207