MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132611218 · doi:10.3138/cras.38.2.227

Enter the Schlemiel: The Emergence of Inadequate or Incompetent Masculinities in Recent Film and Television

2008· article· en· W2132611218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Buchbinder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGerman legal, social, and political studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityPerformative utteranceComedyHegemonic masculinityGender studiesSociologyOrder (exchange)AestheticsArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Though a good deal has been written on the schlemiel, in literature as well as in film and television, its focus has been chiefly on the construction and/or critique of male Jewishness or, indeed, of Jewish masculinity. The figure of the schlemiel, however, may also be seen rather as representing the more general incompetent or inadequate masculinity that has become increasingly central to much film and television comedy — for example, much of the oeuvre of Ben Stiller, Napoleon Dynamite and American Pie, among the films, and, in television comedy, Everybody Loves Raymond and Kath and Kim. Linking Judith Butler's theory of gender as performative to the idea of “passing” to explore how traditionally masculine behaviours/performances may in fact be understood as ways for men to pass in a particular gender order, especially at a time when there is widespread cultural anxiety around a “crisis in masculinity,” this paper explores the ways incompetent or inadequate performances of masculinity are recuperated into the hegemonic (patriarchal) gender order and simultaneously subvert and weaken that order.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicGerman legal, social, and political studiesFrench-language works237,207