Bibliographic record
Abstract
FILM INFORMATION & CONTEXT \n \n'Soap' is a short dark comedy film, an experimental narrative: when Sami breaks into a house, he is disturbed by Sophia, the owner of the property, who lures the criminal into her bathtub. \n \nThe film premiered at the 2015 New Jersey International Film Festival, hosted at Rutgers University, where it opened the competition section and won an honorable mention. It was also screened at the 2015 Vancouver International Film Festival as part of their ‘Great Performances’ series. \n \nDIRECTOR'S STATEMENT \n \n'Soap' imagines a bathtub as a site of sexual encounter between a burglar and a homeowner. It’s initially a space in which classic cinematic tropes – film noir with a dash of British realism – are played out, but which soon morphs into a fantasy digital realm which bears more than a passing resemblance to an Xtube video. Sami, the burglar, reminds Sophia, the owner of the property, that they are lost in an endless flow of files, folders, clouds, and streams; all “compressed, but real as can be.” \n \nJust how anonymous is a sexual encounter when the participants themselves realize it is something worth watching? Sami and Sophia are trapped in a farce, self-consciously replete with hot criminals, cheating lovers, melodramatic revelations, and a mysterious pile of raspberry jelly (appropriately ~ formless). \n \nThe film is both an unabashed guilty pleasure and a formal experiment. We shot with a Pocket BlackMagic in a confined space, making extensive use of offscreen action and sound, restricting ourselves to close-ups once Sami and Sophia step into the bath. The insistently locked-off, shot-reverse-shot camerawork traces a route from classic noir to webcam aesthetics, thereby referencing a historical moment perhaps epitomized by the Andy Warhol film Trash (I was thinking of this film, and the ways it anticipates the staging of reality TV, when I wrote the script). The bath is a soapy realm of sexual transgression, a place where old is made new, where identities shape and blend, where performance endures. As Sami points out, wiping away his shaving foam, it’s just like the cinema.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".