MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401698729 · doi:10.3138/utq.93.02.03

Experiential Empathy through Feminist Observation: The Bond between Women and Animals in the Ecocinema of Andrea Arnold and Kelly Reichardt

2024· article· en· W4401698729 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tamar Hanstke

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyExperiential learningPsychologyGender studiesPsychoanalysisSociologySocial psychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Andrea Arnold and Kelly Reichardt are two of the most successful and critically acclaimed female filmmakers working today, each possessing a distinctive directorial style that has endeared them to a wide range of film audiences. Arnold has long been preoccupied with social realist character studies focused on working-class citizens of the United Kingdom, while Reichardt has spent her career crafting slow cinema set in the American Pacific Northwest. An essential theme unites these directors’ filmographies: their interest in relationships between women and animals as human women try – and generally fail – to supplement their unsatisfying human connections with a love for animals. This article examines this theme through a feminist eco-critical lens, considering how these representations of human-animal bonds might relate to real-life ecological concerns. I argue that these filmmakers awaken new social and political understandings in their viewers through employing a form of experiential empathy via feminist ecocinematic observation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.025
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207