MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405659393 · doi:10.18192/rceh.v46i2.4932

El cine como patrimonio afectivo en Arrebato de Iván Zulueta

2024· article· es· W4405659393 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos · 2024
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCinema History and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tras la resaca de más de 40 años de dictadura franquista, Iván Zulueta “irrumpe” en el panorama cinematográfico español con una obra tan inclasificable como vanguardista: Arrebato (1979). Se trataba de un filme tremendamente rupturista, tanto en el abordaje de las temáticas tratadas (drogas, sexo, y esmerada renovación de la tradición vampírica) como en su valiente concesión a la experimentación sonora y visual tomada del cine underground neoyorkino y barcelonés de los años 60 y 70. Pero, Arrebato, fue, ante todo, un filme autobiográfico, autorreferencial y visionario. Zulueta y Arrebato convergen y se entreveran en un mismo e inequívoco relato de fantaterror. El presente artículo despeja las claves interpretativas de esta relación siamesa entre el autor y su única obra testamentaria, aportando nuevas apreciaciones sobre una de las películas más singulares del catálogo fílmico español.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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