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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".