Why Whistler will Never be Sundance, and what this tells us about the Field of Cultural Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En combinant paysages enneigés et cinéphilie, sans mettre de côté l’intérêt avoué pour la découverte de nouveaux talents du cinéma indépendant, le festival de films de Whistler supporte la comparaison avec celui de Sundance. Toutefois, à l’aube de son dixième anniversaire, le festival continuait, en 2010, à lutter pour imposer son image de marque, même s’il avait consolidé sa niche dans le circuit des festivals nordaméricains. Cet article reprend certains éléments du travail de Pierre Bourdieu sur la culture pour observer comment un festival construit sa valeur symbolique. Plutôt que d’examiner cette médiation en mettant l’accent sur des éléments textuels, cet article considère plutôt la façon dont le festival a construit son identité et a mis en valeur son environnement géographique. Les idées de Bourdieu sont utilisées pour examiner le rôle du journalisme promotionnel et les conceptions contradictoires de la valeur culturelle qui caractérise les festivals « de découvertes ».
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".