Lâallégorie comme discours politique dans Underground d'Emir Kusturica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notre recherche se compose de trois parties essentielles. La première présente\nune définition de l’allégorie en général, puis dans les arts visuels et pour finir\nau Cinéma. La deuxième partie consiste à analyser l’allégorie dans\nUnderground de Kusturica. Dans cette deuxième partie, nous commencerons\npar exposer les caractéristiques générales du cinéma d’Emir Kusturica avant\nd’analyser la manière dont le réalisateur utilise l’allégorie dans Underground\npour dénoncer une guerre. Enfin, dans la troisième partie, nous évoquerons les\nrisques qu’un traitement allégorique peut comporter en parlant de la polémique\nqu’Underground provoqua lors de l’attribution de la Palme d’or au festival de\nCannes en 1995. Nous faisons l’hypothèse que Kusturica a eu recours à\nl’allégorie, non pas pour contourner la censure, mais pour contourner les\néventuelles critiques.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".