MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406104426 · doi:10.62192/japas.v12i1-2n12

Review of: <em>Women Talking</em> [film]—Sarah Polley

2024· article· en· W4406104426 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R.E. Janzen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtChemistryMaterials scienceAnimal scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns0:p>Women Talking (directed by Sarah Polley) is a film that was released in 2022 and is based on Miriam Toews’ 2018 novel of the same name. Both the film and the novel are, in turn, based on events that took place in the early 2000s in Manitoba Colony, Bolivia, where Old Colony Mennonite men raped and assaulted women and girls in their own community. This review contextualizes the movie by explaining Old Colony Mennonite beliefs, religious practices, and migrations, and then it summarizes the film and offers some thoughts about outsiders’ fascination with the film. [First paragraph.]</ns0:p>

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist StudiesSame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207