Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book, edited by Cheang with G. Biddle-Perry offers the first thorough examination of the social importance of the expressive, representational and material possibilities of human hair. The presentation, manipulation and daily experience of human hair are situated within the processes of inscribing cultural meaning, through a complex network of normalising standards and discursive practices. Approaching a diversity of contexts, from classical ballet to television sitcoms, and from India to the East End, this collection examines hair across age, race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. In addition to co-editing the collection, Cheang co-authored wrote the substantial introductory and concluding essays, which offer an original synthesis of cultural studies and anthropological approaches to the study of hair. Cheang also wrote the chapter ‘Roots: Hair and Race’, a 6,000-word essay that analyses museum collections of hair in relation to constructions of ‘race’ (pp.27–42). In particular, Cheang worked with medical, anthropological and natural history collections that include both samples of human hair and photographs. These primary sources are analysed in the context of a critical reading of 19th-century literature that attempted to explain ‘racial difference’. Extending this research, Cheang and Biddle-Perry co-wrote a new 10,000-word entry on ‘Hair’ for the November 2011 online update to the Berg Encylopedia of World Dress and Fashion. Other closely related activities included the organisation and moderation by Cheang and Biddle-Perry of the international symposium ‘Hair Stories: Practice, Theory, Culture’ at the V&A Museum (2009). Following publication of Hair: Styling, Culture and Fashion, Cheang was invited to comment on the meaning of hair collecting and beauty styling in the popular media, including Vogue (2011), The Stylist (2011), Observer Magazine (2013), Elle Canada website (2013), and in the television series programme Taboo (National Geographic Channel).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".