Aubrecht, Review of The Silvering Screen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
published by University of Toronto Press makes a significant contribution to current un-derstandings of population aging. This book has great value as a teaching resource for courses in film studies, cultural studies, women and gender studies, disability studies, family studies, gerontology, sociology, and social policy. Chivers uses an intersectional approach to trace the binary logic that underpins fleshly inscriptions of disability, race, class, and gender on the body (in/)visible and that makes it possible to reduce and contain all the vicissitudes of old age in an image of a wrinkle. She artfully exposes the sexist, sanist, ableist, and racist dimensions of an unequal system of rewards and punishments related to the successful performance of old age, whether the actor is “in character, ” “be-hind the scenes, ” or “off screen. ” The book includes a filmography and movie review, in addition to tools for rethinking what is involved and at stake in the performance of old age within a context framed by cultural anxieties about global population aging. Chivers’s book takes up and embodies Bill Hughes’s (2000) “challenge to the aes-thetic of oppression ” which he describes as “also a challenge to medicine and the medical model of disability ” (p. 557). She accomplishes this by critiquing assumptions that disa-
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.024 |
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".