Fielding fandom : reading childhood through popular and participatory culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phrase "fielding fandom" intends to take advantage of the many entailments of the word field. Designating at once a space or sphere of interest characterized by joint activity and the processes of picking up, putting into action, and responding skillfully, this research includes a consideration of the data gathering techniques, re-presentational strategies, and interpretive skills the contemporary researcher of popular culture can bring to both playing the field and interpreting a particular field of play. In general, this research is an interpretive account of my own close reading strategies and experiences in relation to those popular cultural texts and discourses around childhood that have compelled me to “read wrongly” (Weber & Mitchell, 1995). More specifically, it considers various close encounters that shaped the interactions between other readers in a participatory context (the online fan community Television Without Pity) and, as shaped by a particular text (the Reality TV program Kid Nation). I argue that during these contemporary literary engagements, the subjects of and for reading were discursively formed as individuals employed various strategies to negotiate the inherent paradoxes of the Reality TV text. Emphasizing the ‘real’ in reading popular cultural texts suggests that it is not an a priori form, but rather, must be bracketed from the everyday ways in which we come to know the world. I suggest that reading these texts as a fan-tellectual evokes game-like epistemologies and situated discursive strategies that may also be used to inform the ways in which popular and school-based ways of knowing and forms of knowledge are addressed in the context of teacher education. The image of the researcher as fan-tellectual suggests that educators, too, should strive to recognize and take advantage of the many ways of knowing “(other)wise” (Vinz, 2000) and tolerance for ambiguity and paradox being a fan entails.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".