“Stop Whining and Get on with the Basic Business of Being British”: Notes on Robin Wood, Canada and the Concept of National Film Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After emigrating from England to Canada in the late 1970s, Robin Wood gained wide recognition as a major “Canadian” film critic, but he was criticized by some for his luke-warm response to the cinema of his adopted country. That response can be traced, in part, to the influence of the English literary critic F.R. Levis, but also to intellectual trends and cultural preferences Wood shared with other young film critics who, like Wood, contributed to the London-based periodical Movie in the sixties and seventies. Wood subsequently adapted their critiques of British national cinema and their admiration for Hollywood cinema to the film culture of Canada. Après avoir émigré de l’Angleterre au Canada à la fin des années 1970, Robin Wood est devenu un critique « canadien » majeur. On lui a cependant reproché son manque d’enthousiasme pour le cinéma canadien. Son attitude face au cinéma canadien résultait en partie de l’influence du critique littéraire anglais F.R. Lewis. Mais elle découlait aussi des tendances intellectuelles et des préférences culturelles que Wood partageait avec d’autres jeunes chroniqueurs qui, comme lui, avaient contribué à la revue londonienne Movie au cours des années 1960 et 70. Wood a appliqué à la culture cinématographique canadienne la critique du cinéma national britannique et l’admiration pour le cinéma hollywoodien qui caractérisaient Movie.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".