MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2229814181 · doi:10.1080/17439884.2016.1130055

The promposal: youth expressions of identity and ‘love’ in the digital age

2016· article· en· W2229814181 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Media and Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)HegemonySociologyGender studiesMedia studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceArtAestheticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘promposal’ is a growing, North American high school ritual in which one graduating senior asks another to the prom in a creative, witty, public performance that is recorded and posted online. A YouTube search for ‘promposal’ yields over 49,000 hits, with videos receiving up to 8,000,000 views. What does the promposal reveal about the construction of gender and identity amongst teenagers in the digital era and the nature of the voices channelled, expressed or spoken? In a study of high school students' responses to the promposal as well as a discourse analysis of YouTube videos, this paper argues that: students use promposals to achieve social aims by constructing and presenting desirable identities and voices across multiple platforms; the performances of gender seen in online promposals tend to draw upon, reflect, and reify traditional, hegemonic patterns of behaviour and to amplify the male voice; and promposals are a means of announcing the debut of young people as productive contributors to the neo-liberal economy as they prepare to leave high school.

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning Media and TechnologySame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207