Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, we consider the implications of the mainstream media positioning of Aboriginal runner Cathy Freeman as the hope for a racially reconciled Australia during the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. Given the historic articulation of Australian nationalism to whiteness and masculinity, it is remarkable that a young Aboriginal woman claimed such a central place in media coverage of this global event. 1 Freeman was undoubtedly the face of the Games, the individual around whom imaginings of a racially reconciled Australia coalesced. 2 During the Games she became, to paraphrase Raymond Williams, an operative historical force symbolising Australia’s vision of itself. 3 Our analysis draws upon cultural studies theorising that sees media stories as actively constitutive of reality and thus as having the potential to structure our world views in ways that have social and political consequences. 4 We argue that one consequence of the positive coverage of Freeman is that it contributed to a discourse of enlightened racism 5 that ultimately served white 6 Australians better than Aboriginal peoples. 7 Enlightened racism reflects the broader cultural failure to recognise the effects of institutionalised racism, classism and sexism; in Australia’s case, positive media coverage of Freeman does not necessarily lead to changes in people’s racial attitudes towards Aboriginal people. Thus, enlightened racism can lead to a world view that enables ‘white viewers to combine an impeccably liberal attitude towards race with a deep-rooted suspicion of black people’. 8 This means that admiration for Freeman is able to co-exist with a dislike of Aboriginal people in general. 9 Thus, the problem with discourses of enlightened racism is that despite their apparent progressiveness, they play an insidious role in the continuation of existing racial ideologies. In addition, by individualising success and failure, enlightened racism directs attention away from structural barriers and enables whites ‘to assume that black people who do not measure up … have only themselves to blame’. 10 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".