Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation looks at adolescent male dance students who challenge the dominant perceptions of masculinity by participating in dance, an art form which has been subjected to feminine and homosexual stereotypes. \n \nWith a multi-methodological approach—qualitative, arts-informed, autobiography, interviews, videotape, and performance—this research investigates and explores the largely unknown realities regarding adolescent male dance students; why they decide to take dance; what makes them continue or stop dancing; how their perceptions of dance are transformed over time; how they feel when they are dancing; the realities they embody in studio and on stage; their message to the public about who they were, who they are, and what they want to be in and through dance. \n \nThe researcher challenges the socially constructed epistemology that dance is merely an entertainment while exploring the relationship between mind and body; gender, race, and identity; literature and literacy; physical education and dance; the professional and the novice; the hows and the whys; female and male dance educators; dance pedagogy (theory) and curriculum delivering (practice); and the association of homosexuality and heterosexuality in the context of dance and its effect on adolescent male students’ willingness to dance. \nThis study shows that families, friends, teachers, school administrators, dance class environment, media (So You Think You Can Dance), and technology (internet) have all created various levels of impact on adolescent males’ decision to participate in dance at a high school. Data and implication from this research can serve as a catalyst for future studies on adolescent male dance students. Findings can also be applied to dance programs at all levels, curriculum development, and teacher education. This electronic dissertation encompasses graphs, photos, audio and video clips, webpage links, and even a full-length documentary movie to enhance the research finding and maximize the power of a multimodal design (Jewitt & Kress, 2003).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 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 teacher head, 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".