Film: an Art Form Worthy of Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Film is an integral part of the everyday cultural experience of millions of Canadians (Ewoudou, 2005). Though we have enjoyed film as a society for close to a century, we have been reluctant to regard it as art. The literature on the use of film in education shows that it is predominantly employed as a pedagogical aid and not studied for its intrinsic aesthetic value. This paper will demonstrate that film is a legitimate art form that edifies students and thus merits serious study in the secondary school curriculum. It will discuss how film conveys meaning through a visual narrative. Fundamental cinematic techniques will be examined to show how they communicate ideas, create mood and evoke empathy in the viewer. It will demonstrate how film has evolved aesthetically by looking at the stylistic innovations of the French New Wave movement. An exemplar film from this period, The 400 Blows (1959), will then be analyzed to illustrate the beauty of the medium and its power to express the essence of the human condition. The paper will conclude by advocating for the inclusion of film in the existing Ontario secondary school curriculum and giving recommendations for its study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".