MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411922606 · doi:10.1080/17524032.2025.2521327

The Anti-Extractivist Documentary in Latin America: The Aesthetics and Affordances of <i>When Two Worlds Collide</i> and <i>Surire</i>

2025· article· en· W4411922606 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Communication · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsAffordanceAestheticsLatin AmericansArtSociologyVisual artsPsychologyPhilosophyLinguisticsCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By comparing the environmental documentaries, When Two Worlds Collide and Surire, this paper explores the affordances and limits of the expository and observational documentary modes as expressions of anti-extractivism. Situating this analysis within the larger tradition of social documentaries in Latin America, the paper considers how the aesthetics of these different forms invite viewers to question the rhetoric of an extraction-based development. While When Two Worlds Collide applies and subverts the norms of the expository mode to emphasise its call for tangible collective action, Surire uses the observational mode to challenge the ontologies of landscape and the neat boundaries it draws around and inside the extractive zone. The article does not recommend one form over another, but rather a combined viewing that makes room for the two modes of social documentary.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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