The study of the development of a synchronistic light cinema at the National Film Board of Canada (NFB), in Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette thèse porte sur une exploration historique et esthétique des dispositifs légers et synchrones à l'Office national du film du Canada (ONF). Elle décrit la configuration historique suivant laquelle s'agencent les innovations technologiques, l'évolution des pratiques et les compréhensions du medium cinématographique. Les techniques légères et synchrones reposent à la fois sur un matériel d'enregistrement portable et synchrone, des conditions de production plus souples et une approche particulière où les cinéastes collaborent avec les personnes filmées pour questionner la réalité. Cette approche historique est complétée par une étude comparative des traces du dispositif de production et des films comme empreintes des pratiques cinématographiques. L'analyse précise des films met en évidence les enjeux esthétiques induits par ces dispositifs. L'agencement d'éléments cinématographiques hétérogènes participe à la déterritorialisation du medium afin de révéler l'ambiguïté immanente de la réalité filmée.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".