The paradoxical portrayal of the risk of sexually transmitted infections and sexuality in US magazines <i>Glamour</i> and <i>Cosmopolitan</i> 2000–2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on an exploratory, qualitative content analysis of the portrayal of the risk of sexually transmitted infections or diseases (STIs or STDs) and sexuality in the United States (US) versions of the most popular women's magazines in the world, the English language magazines for young women Cosmopolitan (Cosmo) and Glamour from 2000–2007. The data studied here demonstrate contradictory messages. On the one hand, there is a frequent and powerful portrayal of STIs and STDs as ubiquitous, dangerous, and disgusting, and on the other, there are numerous stories promoting casual sex for women's pleasure. Biomedicine is positioned as the most appropriate system of knowledge for understanding and explaining sexuality and STIs/STDs. The substantive, theoretical, and practical consequences of this paradoxical and contradictory social construction of sexuality and the risk of STIs or STDs are discussed as the major contributions of this paper.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".