Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur revient sur la façon dont les cinéastes québécois se sont approprié les innovations techniques liées au cinéma direct, sur ce « moment effervescent » associé aux réalisations de l’Équipe française de l’Office national du Film du Canada (ONF) au tournant des années soixante. En étant parmi les premiers à investir un nouvel appareillage de tournage plus léger, à en expérimenter tout le potentiel expressif, les cinéastes québécois auront le sentiment de participer pleinement à une histoire du cinéma qui, jusque-là, s’était écrite sans eux. Plus fondamentalement, la technique du direct sera dite libératoire en ce qu’elle permet de s’émanciper du carcan d’une tradition de filmer comme de laisser se manifester des images inédites d’un peuple dominé. C’est en mettant l’accent sur ces deux premiers interlocuteurs du cinéma québécois, à savoir la technique et le peuple, que l’auteur voudrait distinguer à la fois le cinéma « québécois » du cinéma « canadien-français », et le cinéma direct québécois de la Nouvelle Vague française.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| 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".