Bibliographic record
Abstract
"It was only during my second year of MF A studies at York University that I decided which film I wanted to make for my thesis project. I had faced several setbacks in my first year of Masters studies - some of which help guide me towards understanding where I should be focusing my creativity for my thesis. These setbacks left me well behind my classmates' progress, but in the end, my process has brought me to a rewarding place in the development of my artistic voice. \n\nI started out making a very different thesis film also about my Iranian identity and roots, but not about my parent's immigration process to Canada. I came to realize that my parents' story and their series of actions folding and unfolding entailed more than just a process, that leads to an explanation as to why so many people get to a point in their lives where continuing a simple life is no longer an option, regardless of their past. Knowing this was my parents', I often found myself pondering about what is the prerogative of any story's subject to create their own story and make it cinematic. I recognized in their story a parallel for my own artistic growth, as I tried to author the arc of my own artistic growth. Identity and interpretation quickly became the backbone of my film and when writing the script, I asked myself, "What is my role with respect to the events and scenarios that occurred? What is the role of the filmmaker in constructing such identities?" While writing the script, it was integral to me to clearly draw the boundary that delineated the factual from the fictitious. I had to avoid separating myself from the events through too much artistic license; I had to make sure my characters continued to exist within a large margin of reality as events actually unfolded. I hope I succeeded."
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".