MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2225429237 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2015.1076626

Excluded from privilege? Black American fraternity men’s negotiations of hegemonic masculinity

2015· article· en· W2225429237 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pepper E. Totten, Lisbeth A. Berbary

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityHegemonic masculinityGender studiesFraternitySociologyPrivilege (computing)RacismIntersectionalityHegemonyQueerPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States in 2015, race and masculinity are at crucial sociopolitical crossroads – particularly as individuals and communities attempt to navigate the complicated experiences Black American males must face under the backdrop of police brutality, violence, and racism (Brunson, 2007; Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995). In a time where Facebook and twitter hashtags have to remind us that #blacklivesmatter, we must support space for Black men to tell their own stories about how they navigate masculinity within cultural discourses that demonize, problematize, and construct what it means to be a Black man in America. In particular, this manuscript will focus on Black fraternity men’s self-perceived understandings of masculinity as developed within Black fraternity spaces with/in American culture. These self-perceived understandings highlight the complex state of raced masculinities caught within and pushing against hegemonic expectations of gender, religiosity, heteronormativity, and ethics of care within current American contexts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207