El grafismo en los festivales de animación
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En el siguiente trabajo de investigación trato la evolución de los títulos de crédito \ncinematográficos y cómo su estilo narrativo ha influido en los openings de los principales \nfestivales de animación y artes visuales del mundo. \nSe pretende descubrir las claves de su estilo a través de las hipótesis que he creado debido a la \nrepercusión que los títulos de crédito de las películas llevan teniendo desde hace más de \ncincuenta años y los cuales han influido también, en la forma de realizar y crear las openings de \nlos festivales de animación, donde, de una forma breve y muy cuidada, se sintetiza todo lo que \nse va a mostrar en los días del festival. \nA partir de los openings del Animac Lleida, Festival International du film d’animation d’Annecy, \nCortoons Festival, Ottawa International Animation Festival, FITC Toronto, F5 Festival, OFFF \nFestival, Toca Me Workshops y Art Futura, crearé un modelo de análisis propio para identificar \ncada tipo de opening a lo largo de las diferentes ediciones de los festivales. Veremos así si se \nhan seguido diferentes tendencias, modas o patrones a la hora de crear los openings durante \naños, para poder sostener la hipótesis inicial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".