MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055393590

Cinema e identidade cultural : David Cronenberg questionando limites

2009· other· pt· W7055393590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) · 2009
Typeother
Languagept
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterOrder (exchange)Field (mathematics)Identity (music)DisciplineModernity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O presente trabalho investiga a marca anglo-canadense na obra do cineasta David Cronenberg a partir do diálogo que instaura com as tradições culturais e teóricas do país que dizem respeito, ao tecnicismo, centrado nos meios de comunicação, propagado pelos teóricos da comunicação da Escola de Toronto e, especialmente, por Marshall Mcluhan e levando em consideração a tendência dos protagonistas canadenses a serem não-heróis, apontada por Margaret Atwood. E com o objetivo de contextualizar sua produção artística, mercadológica e culturalmente, no interior do sistema cinematográfico do Canadá, apresenta uma breve historiografia do cinema do país. Em relação à notória recorrência na obra do cineasta em questionar os limites do corpo humano, este trabalho analisa sua confluência com tradições teóricas e artísticas, que centramse nessa questão. E destaca as considerações referentes à abjeção e ao disgust, sentimentos diretamente associados ao temor frente ao rompimento dos limites corporais. O objetivo central deste trabalho é então desvelar como essas heranças da tradição cultural canadense estão relacionadas às obsessões cronenberguianas, principalmente em relação ao corpo, e à forma como esses elementos se amalgamam na configuração de sua obra extrema e única.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.036
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul)Same topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207