MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412047388 · doi:10.29173/af29546

Confused Robots and Incompetent Humans in Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Bigbug (2022)

2025· article· en· W4412047388 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyun-Jin Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueALTERNATIVE FRANCOPHONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jean-Pierre Jeunet has been working on the presentation of struggling human bodies, in his films such as Delicatessen (1991), La Cité des enfants perdus/The City of Lost Children (1995), and most recently, Bigbug (2022). In Bigbug’s fictional 2045, human beings are finally liberated from the duties of house chores. Nevertheless, they no longer have self-determination. Because of the A.I. system’s error, human characters in this film are confined in a house with house robots. This article studies the relationship between human bodies and artificial intelligence in Bigbug, through the lens of transhumanism and animality studies. By transhumanism, I mean an attempt to transform and adapt one’s body with or without technology. I argue that Jeunet’s sense of humour functions as an impetus to encourage his characters to continuously adapt and transform themselves in limited space. Moreover, the animality was discussed differently in this film: instead of comparing animals to humans, Yonyx, the A.I. androids identify humans with animals, mocking the animality of living beings. Referring to Steen Christiansen’s term "terminal films," this article examines how immobile, restricted human bodies co-exist with and resist artificial intelligence in our everyday household.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0160.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueALTERNATIVE FRANCOPHONESame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207