MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976561945 · doi:10.1177/0196859909340054

The Intertextual Terminator: The Role of Film in Branding “Arnold Schwarzenegger”

2009· article· en· W1976561945 on OpenAlexaff
Ellexis Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Communication Inquiry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHollywoodHEROIconComedyMasculinityPersonaMovie theaterSociologyAction (physics)Media studiesLawAdvertisingGender studiesPolitical scienceHistoryArt historyArtLiteratureHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Film has clearly been Arnold Schwarzenegger’s most powerful promotional tool. Given how he wielded his action hero personas during the 2003 recall election from which he emerged Governor of California, an examination of his construction in film is both warranted and necessary. In this paper, I trace the development of his celebrity through a selection of his films between 1970 and 2003 and show that his image went through three major transitions from: a) initially being depicted as a foreigner and alien “other” in the 1970s to b) an American and icon of muscular masculinity in Hollywood action films of the mid to later 1980s and c) to a “New Age Guy” and family man through his movement into comedy and family themed films in the 1990s and 200s. My analysis highlights the powerful role that discourses about masculinity, whiteness and American nationhood played in supporting Schwarzenegger's constructions as a “body of governance” and in particular, his construction as a leader.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Communication InquirySame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207