MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392115829 · doi:10.1017/9781805431459.005

Image, Environment, Infrastructure: The Social Ecologies of the Bergfilm

2023· other· en· W4392115829 on OpenAlexaff
Seth Peabody

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage (mathematics)Computer scienceBusinessComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

And what has become of our beautiful skiing? A little bit of a circus! … I did not want to call people to this modern mass enterprise of artificially prepared slopes, to this “get to the bottom as quickly and easily as possible”; that, at any rate, was not what I wanted to communicate to people back then. Alpine skiing was not a sport that was once in tune with nature and later became alienated from it by speed and sport; its transformation reflects an ideology in flux. The German Mountain Film or Bergfilm has been a case for debate since director Arnold Fanck pioneered the genre in the 1920s. The films have been lambasted for displaying proto-fascist sentiments and for serving as the starting point for Leni Riefenstahl, several of her favored camera operators, and possibly the aesthetic approach that would define the most prominent works of filmic propaganda in Nazi Germany. They have been celebrated as pathbreaking works of nature documentary that set spectacular remote environments into motion and made them accessible for a mass audience. More recently, they have been analyzed as complex and contradictory works within the intellectual, social, and cinematic history of Weimar Germany. In all of these discussions, the genre's eponymous Berg has remained remarkably flat and static. Critics have repeated claims that the mountain emerges as a main character or actor in the films, but unlike for any other actor in the genre, the history of the mountain beyond the scope of the film has been unworthy of interest. This oversight is worth addressing, given that the mountains themselves, not only the film industry and the social-political context, were developing rapidly. How were the mountains changing during the era in which the mountain films flourished? What role did the films play in these changes? This chapter argues that German mountain films, especially in their brief heyday starting one century ago, served as a creative catalyst for the development of Alpine tourist infrastructure. Filmic aesthetics imaginatively amplified and accelerated developments in Alpine tourism infrastructure that had been underway for decades. The social ecology model of environmental history provides a framework for considering the interplay between nature and culture: while these two fields are inseparable from each other, social change must be impacted through acts of communication, whereas changes to the physical environment require physical forces.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

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 studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207