MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6945771267 · doi:10.25439/rmt.27596619

Spectral thresholds and monstrous pedagogies: characterising and remembering millennial children’s horror television in Australia

2022· dissertation· en· W6945771267 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedia Influence and Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMovie theaterLiminalityTelevision seriesPeriod (music)Television studiesReality televisionPopular cultureCopying

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Debates about horror and television in psychology and popular discourse have often focused on shielding young viewers from potentially harmful content, regarding children either as innocent victims in need of protection or as susceptible to copying violent behaviour. Yet during the 1990s and early 2000s, horror television made for children became prolific, including new anthology series such as Goosebumps (1995–1998) and Are You Afraid of the Dark? (1990–2000). The turn of the millennium was an experimental and increasingly competitive period in children’s television production. In the USA and Canada, children’s cable channels promoted unique brand identities, such as Nickelodeon’s “edgy” programming, to distinguish themselves from rival networks and in Australia, new commercial channel owners bolstered funding for children’s television. In this climate, series creators with greater creative freedom produced innovative, boundary-pushing children’s television that was neither patronising nor afraid to frighten young viewers. Despite this, children’s horror television remains underexamined, with children’s horror studies an emerging field predominantly focused on textual analyses of cinema and literature. Using children’s horror television broadcast in Australia between the 1990s and early 2000s as a case study, this thesis employs a combination of methods, including textual analysis of programs and paratexts, an online survey and focus groups, to elevate the voices of fans and former viewers. This audience-centred approach is used to explore the characteristics and meanings of children’s horror television during this period as remembered by people who grew up watching it. Focusing on this moment in Australian television, this study argues that children’s horror television is a liminal subgenre that is characterised by thresholds. Participants remember a diverse array of children’s horror programs. Through analysing patterns in responses, this thesis identifies two dominant trends: “playfully spooky” and “frightening anthology” series. Playfully spooky series are an older style of comedic children’s horror television, whereas frightening anthology series generally aim to produce fear via self-contained episodes with unresolved threats. Children’s horror television’s thresholds are textual, generic, spatial and temporal. These programs catered to a pre-teen demographic on the verge of adolescence, acted as a potential gateway into the broader horror genre and responded to industrial changes on the threshold of the digital age. On Australian public service television, children’s horror programs were often watched unsupervised at the end of the children’s programming block, at the thresholds between day and night and between child and family programming. Programs employ devices to blur the boundaries between the diegesis and the domestic viewing context, including: title sequences; hosts and narrators; unresolved or unhappy endings; and urban legends. Such devices render the boundaries between the child viewer’s reality and the supernatural permeable, revealing the weird among the ordinary in suburbia and the home, and inviting child viewers to cross into horror storyworlds. To counter its popular framing as potentially harmful, scholars have argued that children’s horror is subversive because it “is not associated with notions of education or quality” (Antunes 2020, p. 20) and unapologetically deploys “the horror genre to entertain and frighten children without an underlying didactic imperative” (Balanzategui 2018, p. 212). This thesis extends this argument by identifying the pedagogical utilities and enduring impacts of children’s horror television. Many participants recall these programs as having positive influences and formative impacts, such as: providing the “training wheels” for consumption of adult horror; daring children to prove their bravery; offering access to taboo or otherwise forbidden content; and promoting acceptance of difference. Childhood horror fandom is described as an important facet of personal identity for participants who remember feeling like they did not fit in. Despite these programs’ broad popularity even then, these participants value children’s horror programs as countercultural texts that were often dark or Gothic and challenged parental authority. This thesis argues that this was a rich cultural moment in Australian television and presents the lasting impacts of these programs. Its methodological approach could also be useful for studying the meanings and significance of children’s horror television, and the formative influences of the broader horror genre, for audiences in other national contexts.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,062
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,124

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,313
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library)Même sujetMedia Influence and HealthTravaux en français237 207