Misreading the Tradition: An Intertextual Study of Influence through Filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Lokesh Kanagaraj
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cinema is a dynamic environment that facilitates the exchange between directors and audiences, mediated through film, where artistic vision and interpretation engage with the narratives, visuals, and themes presented on screen. In this cinematic trinity, during the phase of viewer response, the creator’s detachment becomes an interplay between the films and the audiences, leading to a pivotal moment in meaning-making as an expression of independent free will. This article explores the nuanced ambiguities within the cinematic realm, delving deeply into the complexities inherent in the meaning-making process. With meticulous focus, the article's primary objective is to discern the subtle yet crucial distinction between understanding and misunderstanding the concept of intertextuality, a central theme in film analysis. Through this investigation, the article probes into the diverse consequences of these divergent interpretations and emphasises their profound impact on audience perception and cinematic discourse. Additionally, the article scrutinises the intricate relationships intertwining filmmakers, films, and audiences in the elaborate construction of significance within the cinematic landscape. Within this analytical framework, a comparative analysis unfolds, drawing insightful parallels between two eminent directors, Quentin Tarantino and Lokesh Kanagaraj. Through their shared cinematic space, the article aims to dissect and comprehend their filmmaking styles, narrative techniques, and thematic choices, elucidating the varying approaches to intertextuality.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".