MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410314017 · doi:10.32920/ifmj.v4i1-2.2060

A Kin-Aesthetic Cinematics

2024· article· en· W4410314017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa Müller-Trede

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Film and Media Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNext of kinAestheticsArtHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What if subconscious somatic impulses were to be heard? What if these impulses were a means to communicate silently and non-categorically? What would a film that follows these bodily impulses look and sound like? To answer these questions, I have devised a cinematic production and postproduction process that prioritizes neither verbal language nor mimesis but, instead, subliminal subtext. Through a form of worldbuilding and storytelling that focuses on the silences between the bodies in front of the camera, I expose a hidden somatic language and capture it in moving images. I trace tensions and affective expressions that are visible within the body yet often buried underneath words and deliberate gesturing. As part of my production method, I analyze performers’ synchronized sonic breath data with the help of machine learning and custom-made wearable stethoscopes I have developed to foreground the intricate physical expressions that tend to be unseen yet form a distinct language unique to the encounters and intimacies exchanged between bodies. Much like a polygraph, this process exposes corporeal impulses and reveals the nuances bodies communicate when they cannot hide behind words or control their reflexive reactions. I then actively “co-edit” with the algorithm and disregard the traditional shot - counter shot logic to, instead, privilege patterns of kinaesthetic communication that demand a different rhythm. Kinaesthetic negotiation does not organize around questions and answers nor around the notion of turn-taking as dictated by verbal communication. Instead, bodies exchange somatic information simultaneously and continuously (Barsalou 2003, Feldman Barrett 2017, Bateson 1977). In order to decipher patterns within somatic communication, each exchange is regarded as singular and specific to the interactions of the particular bodies involved. Unlike the current trend of using deep learning by relying on vast and inevitably misrepresentative datasets, my application of AI uses the specific data of the people involved in the filmmaking process and is not exposed to biased datasets. This presentation discusses how somatic dynamics, once deciphered as a form of language, reveal affective patterns in non-verbal communication that are key to how bodies move one another on screen. It introduces an application of AI in cinema which attends to and augments corporeal nuance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueInteractive Film and Media JournalSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207