MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408508880 · doi:10.1080/01956051.2024.2432241

Living “On the Edge”: A Conversation with Matteo Sanders and Tobias Resch

2024· article· en· W4408508880 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Ue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Popular Film and Television · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Cultural and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationGerontologySociologyMedicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Director and co-writer Matteo Sanders’ ambitious short film “On the Edge” (2022), or “Am Grat,” centres on the relationship between two siblings—Paul (co-writer Tobias Resch) and Felix (Tobias’ real-life brother Noah)—as they take on the Eisenerzer Reichenstein mountain. The ascent, already physically demanding, is made more so by severe weather conditions and by the multiple sclerosis (MS) that’s affecting Paul. Sanders and Resch nevertheless present a positive outlook: they explore how the brothers reconfigure their relationship, and they do so through the characters’ (and actors’) silences as much as their speeches, their uncertainties as much as their certainties. In this interview, Sanders, Resch, and I examine the filmmakers’ depiction of these characters; their research into, and their imaginative approach to, MS; the challenges of filming on the often incredibly foggy Alps; and their use of the seemingly impenetrable weather condition as a metaphor. This interview offers insights into the challenges—as well as the rewards—of filming in this environment, and it celebrates “On the Edge,” which has screened at dozens of festivals internationally and which has now been recognized by Vimeo as a Staff Pick.

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)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Popular Film and TelevisionSame topicInterdisciplinary Cultural and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207