Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relatively recent growth of doctoral-level theory-praxis film and digital media programs poses the question of how film practice “counts” in the academic sense. The common perception of filmmakers as auteurs, cineastes, and rebels seemingly contradicts standards of rigor upheld by the university. Documentary film, methodologically close to sociology, pedagogically orientated, and with an already established academic sub-discipline (documentary studies) is on firmer ground. This essay first discusses a call for using documentary with qualitative inquiry. It then assesses a documentary research approach that probes the tensions between aesthetics and activism. Finally, it reflects on the theoretical and practical concerns of the author’s documentary dissertation research. It concludes that, particularly when research deals with communities and their political entanglements, a working through must occur not as theory-praxis but via separate actual and historical investigations—that is, between a historically self-aware film and digital media practice and reading documentary film history against the grain.
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.038 |
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".