Digital Film Historiography: Challenges of/and Interdisciplinarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital methods were slow to make inroads into film studies and particularly into film historiography.There are a number of reasons for this situation of extended latency: as a multimodal object, film requires a complex methodology for analysis which, in its translation into computational and data-driven approaches, calls for an adequately multi-layered theoretical and methodological framework.As a legal entity, film is heavily protected by copyright which means that access is either not possible in lawful terms or requires lengthy negotiations.As a digital object, film comes in the form of large files that are not easy to handle and need considerable computing power.Finally, the sources relevant to the cinema's past were rather peripheral and the necessary infrastructures for them were non-existent for the longest time.Many of the sources have not been digitized and they are still not available online.This is especially true for data related to historically underrepresented agents in film history such as women and for data pertaining to film cultures beyond the Global North.All these factors contributed to a situation in which applying data-driven methods to cinema history as a method of investigation became a difficult challenge.Digital methods also require an investment of considerable resources: personal, technical, and institutional.Using digital methods in order to understand cultural phenomena, as it happens in other related disciplines, requires training, funding, personnel, a large amount of time for obtaining reliable results, and serious considerations in order to achieve long-term durability of both results and data.Undoubtedly, the agenda of many disciplines in the humanities were somewhat reluctant to these challenges.And there is still no consensus regarding how digital humanities as a field may fit with the particularities of specific communities in the humanities (cinema history, but also digital translation history, digital anthropology, or archaeology).Thus, we formulate a claim for a broader understanding which allows us to see our similarities, but also our differences and how different we Diana Roig-Sanz acknowledges the support of the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme that allowed to organize the conference "Rethinking Film History
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".