Travellings exoticism in the architecture of atmospheric movie theatres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“We sell tickets to theatres, not movies,” was the famous motto of film mogul Marcus Loew. This statementcan seem incongruous today since the majority of movie theatres are multiplexes whose genericarchitecture is repeated throughout the globe. Moviegoing now privileges the film over the architecturalenvironment in which the movie is presented. This was not always the case: from the 1910s until the adventof commercial television in 1952, the design of movie theatres was as equally important as the movieprojected on the screen. If movie palaces celebrated the role of architecture in the cinematic journey, theclimax of immersive cinema was at the core of another building type: the atmospheric movie theatre. Thistypology developed by John Eberson in the early 1920s transported filmgoers in dreamlike fantasies, faraway from their daily routines. The architectural reference was no longer Ancient Greece or Rome as inearlier movie palaces, but rather exotic cultures such as Egypt, China, India or Moorish Andalusia.This research examines the role of atmospheric movie theatres in stimulating an architecture of theimagination, through the case studies of three Canadian movie theatres: the neo-Egyptian Empress Theatreof Montreal, Quebec, built in 1927; the Spanish-Baroque Orpheum Theatre of Vancouver, British Columbia,built in 1927; and the medieval-inspired Capitol of Port Hope, Ontario, built in 1930. Each movie theatre is athemed space in which the representation of Otherness guides the exotic decor. The spatial experience ofthe movie theatre is an emotional and affective journey that transports moviegoers to an exotic elsewhere, ifnot physically, metaphorically. Beyond accuracy and authenticity, the immersive and make-believeenvironment of the atmospheric movie theatre, sustained by the fictive medium of cinema, shapes anarchitecture of the imagination.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".