MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399591063 · doi:10.1177/18681026241255703

Community Building Through Screen Sharing: Community Screening as Cultural Practice in Postmillennial Hong Kong and Beyond

2024· article· en· W4399591063 on OpenAlex
Helena Wu

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Current Chinese Affairs · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHong Kong and Taiwan Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionSociologySpace (punctuation)Public relationsMedia studiesPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceVisual artsMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community screenings in this study are understood as the exhibition of moving images outside conventional theatres and commercial circuits. Based on fieldwork observations and interviews conducted between January 2019 and January 2020 with film workers, community groups, and venue providers who knitted together a rhizomatic community screening network in Hong Kong, this paper explores the (self-)making of urban cultural space by way of the reinvention of “screens” and the rebuilding of a place-based, people-centred community with ethical concerns for small businesses, artists, craftspeople, workers, and members of the public during the first two decades of postmillennial era. The paper concludes with some observations about the phenomenal shift in not only the mode, but also the site of film dissemination from Hong Kong to overseas diasporic communities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and following the emigration wave in the 2020s.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.362 · 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