MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161721530 · doi:10.3138/cjfms-2025-0031

Getting Credit: Judith Crawley, Camerawoman

2025· article· en· W7161721530 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liz Czach

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film and Media Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmateurProfessionalizationFilm directorCasualOrder (exchange)ScreenwritingState (computer science)Craft

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Judith Crawley, one-half of the husband-and-wife team that founded Crawley Films in 1939, is an overlooked figure in Canadian film history. In the early years of Crawley Films, Judith undertook an impressive number of production roles including producing, directing, screenwriting, sound mixing, and photography. Looking closely at several film productions in which Judith Crawley was involved, at both Crawley Films and the National Film Board of Canada, establishes how she matured from an amateur camera operator to a professional cinematographer. Piecing together Judith Crawley’s work as a cinematographer on films released roughly from 1939 to 1944 presents a historical challenge, as absent production histories and omitted credits often obscure women’s contributions to nontheatrical films. This article aims to disentangle Judith Crawley’s contributions from those of her husband Budge, while paying close attention to screen credits to consider how authorship and professionalization are withheld or bestowed upon the non-theatrical film labourer through the presence or absence of accurate attribution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1200.021

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film and Media StudiesSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207