MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015263115

SEX AND AGGRESSION IN NELSON Mc CORMICK’s PROM NIGHT 
\nMOVIE (2008); A PSYCHOANALYTIC CRITICISM

2011· other· en· W7015263115 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUMS Library Center of Academic Activities (Universitas Surakarta) · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsAssumption University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoanalytic theoryAggressionPromCriticismPersonality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Febriasari Ratna Wulan. A320070309. SEX AND AGGRESSION IN NELSON Mc CORMICK’s PROM NIGHT MOVIE (2008); A PSYCHOANALYTIC CRITICISM. Research Paper. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. 2011. 
\n The major problem in this study is to show sex and aggression in Nelson Mc Cormick’s Prom Night movie by using psychoanalytic criticism. It is conducted 
\nby analyzing the movie based on its structural elements and based on psychoanalytic criticism. 
\n This research is qualitative research. Type of data of the study is text and image taken from two data sources: primary and secondary. The primary data 
\nsource is Prom Night movie directed by Nelson Mc Cormick released in 2008. While the secondary data sources are taken from the books of literary, internet, and other relevant information. Both data are collected through library research and analyzed by descriptive analysis. 
\nUsing a psychoanalytic criticism as the theoretical framework, the research shows the following findings. First, based on the structural analysis it seems that 
\nin this movie, Nelson Mc Cornmick delivers a message about unnatural obsession can cause negative ability until make an aggression to another people. Second, 
\nbased on psychoanalytic analysis, Nelson wants to convey the psychological phenomena that is a type of personality that leads to sex and aggression 
\n

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 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), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUMS Library Center of Academic Activities (Universitas Surakarta)French-language works237,207