MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096582198

Film and Television Sector Profile(1)- Argentina

2005· article· en· W7096582198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovie theaterRest (music)Service (business)NoveltyBox office
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Argentina's cinema audience declined during the first years of the country's four-year recession, Argentinians--who are enthusiastic consumers of cultural industries--returned to the movie theatres beginning in 2000. Movies comprise the only cultural sub-sector that didn't suffer due to the 2001/2 economic crisis and by 2003, the number of film goers rose to 32.6 million. However, significant differences between the behaviour of audiences in the City of Buenos Aires and in the rest of the country can be registered. In 1995, 70 % of the national audience lived in Buenos Aires, while in 2003, the majority or about two thirds lived in cities other than Buenos Aires. The explosion in audience numbers outside of Buenos Aires can be explained in part by the novelty of new shopping malls appearing in almost every city, featuring major movie theatres that have been built and managed by international chains. Nevertheless, citizens of Buenos Aires went to the movies 3.4 times on average during 2003, more often than other Argentinians, who on average went only once. Among film goers in Buenos Aires, 39 % attended movie theatres at shopping malls. During the first six months of 2004, nearly 22.8 million movie tickets were sold in Page 1 of 18InfoExport- The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2000.057

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCinema and Media Studies→French-language works237,207→