MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739877838 · doi:10.5206/notabene.v10i1.6611

Buying into the Ideal Performance of Womanhood: Gendered Marketing in the Recontextualization of “She’s Always a Woman” for John Lewis’ Advertising Campaign

2017· article· en· W2739877838 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emma Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueNota bene · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteronormativityIdeal (ethics)NarrativeSociologyGender studiesIdentity (music)AestheticsHuman sexualityArtLiteraturePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the role of Fyfe Dangerfield’s cover of “She’s Always a Woman” by Billy Joel, within the presentation of heteronormative gender roles in John Lewis’ 2010 advertising campaign. After outlining the narrative of the advertisement and the ways in which the female protagonist is gendered from girlhood to womanhood, this paper draws upon the work of feminist scholar Judith Butler to problematize John Lewis’s portrayal of gender to show how it perpetuates heteronormative stereotypes. Then, drawing on theories of popular music surrounding identity and the importance of lyrics, John Lewis’ use of Fyfe Dangerfield’s cover is analyzed, outlining the way in which the music strengthens a simplistic narrative of ideal girlhood and womanhood, as well as how it encourages potential customers to identify with the brand. The paper then questions whether John Lewis is able to challenge heteronormativity due to their established brand identity or whether the responsibility falls upon the society, and concludes that it is essential to challenge the function of gender and music within advertisements.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNota beneSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207