MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W628217481

Guy Maddin : interviews

2010· book· en· W628217481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guy Maddin, Daniel Holm

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtFilm directorMovie theaterArt historyStyle (visual arts)Performance artNarrativeVisual artsLiteratureHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of Canada's premier cinematic exports, Guy Maddin (b. 1956) is an award-winning filmmaker with a rising reputation. Known for his autobiographical tales---hidden deeply within comical, absurd, and surrealistic narratives---Maddin has earned international acclaim, including a lifetime achievement award at the Telluride Film Festival at the age of thirty-nine. Possessing a deep knowledge of silent cinema, modernist artists, and novelists, Maddin's seemingly amateurish visual style and unusual subjects (patriphagia in The Dead Father, incest in Careful) obscure the surprisingly literate sources for his films. These include novelists Knut Hamsun (Twilight of the Ice Nymphs) and Kazuo Ishiguro (The Saddest Music in the World), the Royal Winnipeg Ballet (Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary), and the films of Erich von Stroheim (Archangel). Guy Maddin: Interviews collects pieces published between 1990 and 2009 and offers the reader a whirlwind tour of Maddin's offbeat career in his own words, as solicited by a range of journalists, scholars, and fellow filmmakers. Maddin is a charming, erudite, and candid conversationalist who is frank about his own perceived drawbacks, his good fortune, and the often high art culture that motivates his cinematic explorations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.009

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiterature, Film, and Journalism AnalysisFrench-language works237,207