MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977190468 · doi:10.1080/14791420802239685

Dressing Down Hillary

2008· article· en· W1977190468 on OpenAlex
Roseann M. Mandziuk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication and Critical/Cultural Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicVisual Culture and Art Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPARRYRhetoricPoliticsArtMedia studiesPostmodernismArt historyPopular cultureFeminismPerformance artSociologyGender studiesLiteraturePolitical scienceLawPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Karen Vasby Anderson, “Hillary Rodham Clinton as ‘Madonna’: The Role of Metaphor and Oxymoron in Image Restoration,” Women's Studies in Communication 25 (2002): 1–24; Mary Ellen Brown, “Feminism and Cultural Politics: Television Audiences and Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Political Communication 14 (1997): 255–70; Keith V. Erickson and Stephanie Thomson, “Seduction Theory and the Recovery of Feminine Aesthetics: Implications for Rhetorical Criticism,” Communication Quarterly 52 (2004): 300–19; Shawn J. Parry-Giles, “Mediating Hillary Clinton: Television News Practices and Image-Making in the Postmodern Age,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 17 (2000): 205–26. 2. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, “The Discursive Performance of Femininity: Hating Hillary,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 (1998): 6. 3. Parry-Giles, 206. 4. “Gnotes,” Glamour Magazine, June 1993: 133. 5. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990), 23. 6. Butler, 173. 7. Jennifer Craik, The Face of Fashion: Cultural Studies in Fashion (New York: Routledge, 1994), 204. 8. Fred Davis, “Clothing and Fashion as Communication,” in The Psychology of Fashion, ed. Michael R. Solomon (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985), 24. 9. Leslie Bennetts, “Pinning Down Hillary,” Vanity Fair, June 1994: 160. 10. Martha Sherrill, “Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Mirabella, June 1994: 80. 11. “The Week's Best Late Night Laughs,” Toronto Sun, 1 July 2007: 83. 12. “Laugh Lines,” New York Times, 18 February 2008: 2. 13. Ellis Henican, “There's a Little Hil in Us All,” Newsday, 10 February 2008: A2; Johnathan Darman, “How They Have Lost,” Newsweek, 3 March 2008: 28; Liz Smith, “News,” Daily Variety, 1 November 2007: 4. 14. Dan Janison, “Spin Cycle: Tossing Out Those Gender Stereotypes,” Newsday, 19 November 2007: A20. 15. Tina Brown, “Hillary and the Invisible Women,” Newsweek, 17 March 2008: 28. 16. Michael McAuliff and Ian Bishop, “A Fiery Hillary Goes on the Attack,” Daily News, 16 November 2007: 15; “Around the Water Cooler: Later Night Comics,” Good Morning America, ABC, 5 February 2008. 17. Jane Ridley, “Another Pol's Wife Wearing ‘Stand by Man’ Suit,” Daily News, 11 March 2008: 8. 18. Maureen Dowd, “Duel of Historical Guilts,” New York Times, 5 March 2008: A23. 19. Robin Givhan, “Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory,” Washington Post, 20 July 2007: C01. 20. Joe Strupp, “Cleavage Column Draws Critiques and Support, and an Ombudsman's Defense,” Editor & Publisher, 30 July 2007. 21. Butler, 25. Additional informationNotes on contributorsRoseann M. MandziukRoseann M. Mandziuk is Professor of Communication Studies at Texas State University. She has published a variety of critical works, including feminist analyses of media discourse and rhetorical studies of Sojourner Truth, and is currently working on a project about public memory in women's history museums

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.197 · 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