MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311407437 · doi:10.1525/sop.2002.45.4.379

Queering Whiteness: The Peculiar Case of the Women's National Basketball Association

2002· article· en· W2311407437 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mary G. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Perspectives · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsQueerLeagueBasketballGender studiesSociologyLesbianWhite (mutation)GirlDeviance (statistics)MainstreamHuman sexualityIdeologyPoliticsMoralityWhite privilegePleasureRacismPsychologyPolitical scienceHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers an investigation of the Women's National Basketball Association's marketing discourses and provides historical and contemporary contexts to illuminate the complex articulations of race and sexuality imagined via representations of the league and its players. Proposing to “queer whiteness” by deploying particular inflections of the word queer, this article makes visible the ways in which discourses related to heterosexuality and whiteness assist marketers in advertising the league as a “mainstream” and therefore salable event. Marketers thus participate in and advance a representational politics that elevates the importance of maternity and morality as emblematic of the WNBA's idealized image of the “good girl,” especially the “good white girl.” This constant emphasis on the players' moral attributes and family values helps to distance the league from projections of alleged deviance imagined to be embodied by “fatal women”—that is, bodies marked as black and lesbian—the alleged obverse of the “good white girl.”

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)0.004
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0370.025
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations62
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociological PerspectivesSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207