Korean Screen Culture: Guest Editor's Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his introduction to a special issue based on articles originating from the Korean Screen Culture Conference in Acta Koreana in December 2013 Andrew Jackson expressed his wish that the Korean Screen Culture Conference became an annual event.His wish came true.Four years later this special issue of Acta Koreana grew directly out of the Sixth Korean Screen Culture Conference, which was held at the University of Hamburg on June 16-17, 2017.The 2017 conference attracted thirty-five presenters from thirteen countries, including New Zealand, Russia, Denmark, the UK, India, the Netherlands, Canada, the Philippines, Singapore, Germany, Sweden, the USA and Korea, despite the fact that travel grants were extremely limited.These numbers represent significant growth since the conference was founded in 2012 by Andrew Jackson.In just six years, the location of the conference has moved from London to Sheffield and then to Copenhagen and Hamburg, and the conference has become more interdisciplinary and attracted scholars from more countries.The first conference in 2012 had only five participants who discussed Korean cinema, but just a year later the 2013 conference attracted twenty-five participants from seven different countries.1 Since then, the focus of the conference has expanded to include television, web comics, and music videos.What makes the conference so attractive?Part of the success of this annual conference is of course related to the phenomenon of hallyu, or the Korean Wave.The 2017 conference venue in Hamburg was filled to bursting with students- The 6 th Korean Screen Culture Conference was carried out with the financial support of the Korea Foundation, the University of Hamburg, and the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Hamburg. 1 Andrew Jackson's introduction to a special issue on the Korean Screen Culture Conference in
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.021 |
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".