Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper critically explores the work of Lady Gaga through her music videos, debating whether or not she should be perceived as a symbol of female power. With unclear representations of sex, violence, and power in her videos, it is debatable as to whether she is a gendered warrior fighting for the advancement of women or if she is a pop-cultural representation of hyper-sexualized violence against women in the media. Through this debate, it is argued that Lady Gaga fuels a continuing war against women’s bodies by: a) turning violence against women into a commodity, b) normalizing violence, c) dehumanizing herself, and d) generating unrealistic expectations of female empowerment. Key words : Sex; Violence; Power; Music; Feminism Resume Cet article explore le travail critique de Lady Gaga a travers ses clips videos, de debattre si oui ou non elle doit etre percue comme un symbole du pouvoir feminin. Avec les representations clair de son sexe, de violence et de puissance dans ses videos, il est discutable de savoir si elle est un guerrier sexuee lutte pour la promotion de la femme ou si elle est une representation pop-culturelle de l'hyper-sexualisees violence contre les femmes dans les medias. Grâce a ce debat, il est soutenu que Lady Gaga carburants d'une guerre permanente contre le corps des femmes par: a) transformer la violence contre les femmes en une marchandise, b) la normalisation de la violence, c) se deshumaniser, et d) generer des attentes irrealistes de l'autonomisation des femmes. Mots-cles: Sexe; Violence; Pouvoir; Musique; Feminisme
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".