MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984418046 · doi:10.3138/cras-s032-01-04

Pleasure and Politics in Disney’s Utopia

2002· article· en· W1984418046 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adelaide H. Villmoar, Peter G. Stillman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleasureVisionUtopiaDeclaration of independenceAestheticsPoliticsDemocracyDeclarationConstitutionSociologyLawVariety (cybernetics)Independence (probability theory)Media studiesPolitical scienceArtPsychologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I: IntroductionTraditional notions of liberal, democratic politics1 and freedoms fostered in the United States and found in documents like the “Declaration of Independence” and “Constitution” have relied on the ideas of an open, rich marketplace of politi­cal ideas, individual assertions of rights, energetic public spaces and dialogue, and clear limitations of governmental powers. As American as Walt Disney World (WDW) is, it smoothly suppresses these ideas, even where it presents uto­pian visions of the country’s past, present, and future.2 Visitors to WDW bask in the feeling of being “freed up” from the demands of their daily lives3 as they move through a highly controlled and controlling environment. Public spaces here are really private, corporate avenues to a limited variety of rides, food, shows, stories; they also serve as stages for carefully orchestrated performances by “cast members.“ Individuals readily fall into lines, rarely move their conversa­tions beyond their own family or group, and take photos at the anointed “Kodak Picture Spots“ around EPCOT (Klugman 15). The pleasure here lies largely in the clean, organized, commercial lack of freedom.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207