Étude comparée de la police du cinéma (France, Belgique, Grande-Bretagne, Canada et Australie)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the beginning of the twentieth century, many legal systems created an administrative control of public exhibitions of films leaned on a prior authorisation scheme. This control remains, notably in France, Belgium, Great Britain, Canada and Australia, despite these legal systems have evolved considerably over the twentieth century. In particular, they have undergone a phenomenon of fundamentalization of rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression. The purpose of this research is to understand how the public control of film exhibitions has been accommodated to the evolution of each state's legal system and how its exercise has been made consistent with the strengthening of the value of freedom of expression. The phenomenon of the fundamentalization of freedom of expression is reflected differently in the French, British, Canadian and Australian systems. The comparative approach will tackle the characteristics of the public control of film exhibitions in the light of a range of legal systems that are sufficiently wide and heterogeneous to capture the different possible aspects of an administrative films control based on a prior authorisation scheme. This comparison will be supplemented by the study of the Belgian public control of film exhibitions. Through a reform of February 2019, the Belgian authorities have adopted the Kijkwijzer algorithmic classification scheme created in the Netherlands. This system is based on software that automatically generates classification decisions which are solely indicative for members of the public. The two main features of this new system - the informative nature of the rating decisions and an automated decision making process - will provide a particular insight into the study of certain evolutions in the other systems.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".