MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6984890577

Documentary film

2010· other· en· W6984890577 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterSophisticationShot (pellet)BattleDocumentary filmPaintingNarrativeFilm directorPoint (geometry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term documentary to describe a particular class of non-fiction film comes into general use in English by the early 1930s, but films having the characteristics of what would come to be regarded as documentaries pre-existed the application of the word.The concept of the photograph as a document in the sense of the image being accurate and faithful evidence of what is before the cameras lens dates from the outset of the introduction of the technology in the 1840s.With the coming of cinematography, the cameras capacity to capture the real was its initial selling point and, although, the cinema was soon captured for fiction, coverage of news events, actualities (as the French termed them), continued.Films of travel travelogues (from 1908) or documentaires romancs and the first ethnographic film appeared (1911), as did scientific movies both popular (Cheese Mites, 1903, Charles Urban) and scholarly (Mechanics of the Brain, 1926, Vesvolod Pudovkins footage shot in Pavlovs lab).Governments were quick to see films value as propaganda (Urbans Battle of the Somme, 1916); so were charities (Save the Childrens Russian Famine, 1921).European artists, such as the painter Fernand Lger, experimented with the manipulation of images of the everyday often in a non-narrative form (Ballet mechanique, 1924).Overall, though, non-fiction film was resistant to the growing sophistication of the fictional cinemas narrative techniques.Documentary came to describe a specific non-fiction cinema that melded the cameras ability to document the world with fictions compelling narratives, but without so manipulating the original material that its claim on the real would become attenuate.Edward Curtis In the Land of the Headhunters (1914), for instance, combined non-actors (aka real people), authentic settings and costumes (albeit in Curtis established still-photographic style of recreations of the immediate past) with a fictional story that had no relationship with the Kwakiutl culture he was supposedly recording.He saw the work, nevertheless, as documenting, in some sense or another, Native American reality (Holm and Quimby, 1980).Robert Flaherty, a prospector filming in the Canadian Artic, failed in his earliest attempts to move beyond what he described as a scene of this and a a scene of that.no story (Christopher, 2005:322); but Headhunters showed him how.In 1920/21, with specialised technology (hand-cranked Akeley cameras specifically designed for use in the wild), Flaherty filmed a dramatic 20 year-old true Inuit story of survival.He cast a trapper, Allakarialuk, renamed for the film Nanook, as the hero of his reconstruction of this tale.Leaving Curtis fictional story-telling behind, Flahertys breakthrough was to

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.164 · 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