MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066489936

Je Leonardo DiCaprio dobrá investice?

2016· dissertation· en· W7066489936 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Polarization and Ellipsometry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)RevenueVariable (mathematics)Star (game theory)VariablesRelation (database)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis researches whether there is an effect of casting Leonardo DiCaprio or other star actors in a film on the revenue of the given film and what the effect is, respectively. The data consists of a sample of 905 films screened between 2005-2015 in the United States of America and Canada. The results estimated by the method of least squares indicate that star actors have a positive influence on revenue. The presence of a financialy successful actor means 12% increase in revenue. On the other hand, Oscar-awarded actors influence revenue to a lesser degree. The hypothesis about Leonardo DiCaprios influence could not be either confirmed or denied. Other factors researched were e.g. budget, ratings, whether there is a sequel or director, among others. The variable with the most positive influence is budget; the existence of a sequel is the second most decisive factor.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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