Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed by Good DocsProduced by Abby Ginzberg and Catherine MasudDirected by Catherine Masud2023, Streaming, 84 mins A Double Life is a recommended retelling and reflection of specific criminal justice system corruptions. Protagonist and white attorney, Stephen Bingham, is forced to flee 1970s America and assume an alternative identity when wrongly accused of smuggling a weapon into San Quentin prison during a meeting with inmate and black activist, George Jackson. A subsequent prisoner uprising leads to the deaths of both prison guards and inmates. One has juxtapositions in this film of rich and poor, privileged and persecuted, and the view of a generation of attorneys keen not only on representing clients in a quest for social justice but engaged outside of courtrooms in direct social participation in those struggles for fairness. A Double Life is an especially poignant glimpse into the family background and community activism of its main character, Mr. Bingham, inviting the viewer to consider how those of wealth and political power employ those privileges. The documentary is a superb timeline for one particularly troubling case of political forces and policing trampling on individual rights. An excellent personal profile, one that is well edited, the film is a mix of primary source news sources employed alongside personal documents and reflective testimonials, giving a confident sense of immersion in its time periods. It does not seek to be a historical primer covering all contexts for racial bias or violence within prison systems. Examples of what a life on the run truly represents are front and center. These offer echoes appropriate to current cases of governments or police, driven into socially unjust tactics because of political pressures or intractable bias. We follow Stephen Bingham (aka- Robert Boarts) from an initial violent incident, across wrongful accusations, and through his chosen transnational exile, return and reputational restoration. A Double Life reminds the viewer of the socioeconomic, cultural and racial tensions in society, justice systems, and law enforcement. While not intended to be a pedantic chronicle on the history of activism by students or academics arising out of mid to late 1960s and 1970s era civil rights movements, a compelling view also resides within the film as to roles played by the media and higher education, within the intersections of those institutions with social injustices and social change. Intriguing contrasts are suggested too about divergent norms of journalism and cinema. Standing on the shoulders of many who lose their lives for an important cause and asking to what degree can revolutionary change be rendered peacefully, Bingham, his colleagues and loved ones, are involved in painting a portrait of the questions of life and death frequently on the court docket. One recognizes steep risk at times associated with working toward positive change. And a celebration of commitments not easily quashed. Bingham puts it well in describing a desire, in his words, “not to die stupidly, but even less do I want to live stupidly. Thus, the origin of my gut level feeling that I’d rather die living then live dying.” Awards:Audience Favorite, Mill Valley Film Festival; Best Direction, Toronto Documentary Film Festival
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.846 | 0.678 |
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".