Abitibi360: An example of the evolution of writing for 360-degree films
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While virtual reality technologies have been developing since the 1960s in North America, they became broadly accessible for the public in 2016, with the launch of affordable virtual reality headsets in the global market. Amongst recent virtual reality works, 360-degree films are particularly popular. With this article, I study the evolution of writing for 360-degree films from 2016 to 2020 through the analysis of the 360-degree documentary series Abitibi360 created by Canadian filmmaker Serge Bordeleau, of which Season 1 was produced in 2017 and Season 2 followed in 2020. My goal is to determine how his writing processes changed over this time period and to highlight the various factors that influenced this change. To conduct this research, I present an analysis of creative documents produced by Bordeleau for the two seasons. This work will demonstrate how the author evolved to use virtual reality technologies to develop his own language, even though he continued to be influenced by his original medium: cinematographic documentary films. Bordeleau became more creative as he mastered the techniques of virtual reality production. In particular, he learned to guide the viewer’s attention to chosen points of interest within the 360-degree image by using several techniques, such as light, movement, colour and noise.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it