Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cahiers du cinéma, the prestigious French film journal founded in 1951, is a valuable historical resource as it maintained a high standard of film analysis and coverage of world cinema. Cahiers represents a microcosm on what it means to write, think about, and experience cinema and the audio-visual sphere. The journal’s understudied years from 1981 to 2003 provides a fascinating archive for the reception study of cinema in this defining period where the medium was changing in conjunction with the rise of megaplexes, network broadcasters, international coproductions, home computers, and the Internet. The study of Cahiers during this period examines how their classical cinephilia combined with their radicalism in the 1970s adapted to a contemporary cinema and television culture. Benefiting from first-hand interviews with the five editor-in-chiefs during these years—Serge Toubiana, Thierry Jousse, Antoine de Baecque, Charles Tesson, and Jean-Marc Lalanne—, along with many other contributors, this dissertation’s history of Cahiers brings together insightful observations by participants, close readings of texts, general context, and personal analysis. It argues the journal’s shifting editorial projects reflects the preoccupations of its editors-in-chief with respect to broader intellectual and cultural forces, and new trends in cinema. These aesthetic debates include the romanesque and mannerist films, the “death of cinema” and pop relationship to films, the centennial of cinema, transversal, queer and karaoke cinema, sports television, and video games. These years help to understand a shifting definition of cinema and how it became a social, economic, political, and technological instrument spread across an expanding audio-visual sphere. The spectator’s experience and relationship to technology changed with the creation of these new audio-visual forms. I maintain that Cahiers, with its illustrious past, found a renewed relevancy in the contemporary moment throughout these challenges. This dissertation builds upon previous Cahiers scholarship of its first three decades to show that the history and achievements of the journal for the following period are equally as rich and intellectually stimulating.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".