MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011642924

Movie, London Fields, Entangled in Another Lawsuit

2016· article· en· W7011642924 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

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMemory, History, Trauma, Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawsuitComplaintEntertainmentAction (physics)Cause of actionBreach of contract
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Producers of London Fields are suing actress Amber Heard for $10 million, as the most recent complaint in the string of lawsuits regarding the film. Nicola Six Limited and producers, Chris Hanley and Jordan Gertner, are alleging Heard to have breached contractual obligations. This is the latest action over London Fields, which is based on Martin Amis’ murder mystery novel. This film was set to be shown at the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival. However, it was pulled from premiering when director Mathew Cullen filed a lawsuit against the producers in September 2015.\nThis post was originally published on the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal website on December 13, 2016. The original post can be accessed via the Archived Link button above.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.204 · 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