La lingua del cinema dei Taviani tra scelte ideologiche e arte. Una testimonianza personale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Riassunto: I criteri che guidano sceneggiatori e registi nella scelta di varietà e tratti linguistici inseriti nei dialoghi filmici non trovano, solitamente, una esplicitazione in testi formulati con tale funzione. Le sceneggiature non prevedono paratesti metalinguistici, così come diari di lavorazione e critiche dedicate ai singoli film non commentano primariamente questi aspetti. In questo contributo, che vuole essere anche un ricordo di Paolo e Vittorio Taviani, ho rielaborato la mia esperienza di studio sulle scelte linguistiche dei due registi, che ho avuto la fortuna di conoscere e di intervistare molti anni fa, proprio per confrontare i miei risultati di ricerca con i loro intenti espressivi mediati dalle scelte linguistiche. Lo strumento dell’intervista, specifica in questo caso a indagare le idee dei Taviani rispetto allo stile e ai registri linguistici, si rivela un utile strumento per far emergere eventuali ideologie sottostanti e mettere ulteriormente in luce la forza espressiva, visiva e sonora, delle loro opere.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".