MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760902481 · doi:10.1177/0957155817721681

Domesticating enchantment: Mediating feminine magic in the interwar French fashion magazine

2017· article· en· W2760902481 on OpenAlexafffund
Ilya Parkins

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Cultural Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsModernityAlienationMAGIC (telescope)Style (visual arts)FeminismDomesticationRepresentation (politics)ArtAestheticsArt historyLiteratureSociologyGender studiesHistoryPoliticsPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines men’s writing about women as vectors of enchantment in three interwar French women’s magazines, La Femme Chic à Paris, Vogue and Gazette du Bon Ton. Such articles appeared frequently, and modernised the ancient discourse of feminine enchantment by locating it in tropes of industrial modernity, including women’s fashion and style. While enchantment is a promising concept for feminist and critical scholars, its representation in this genre of men’s writing domesticates its potential to disorient and challenge masculine subjects and conventional knowledges. The essay explores how the generic qualities of the modern women’s magazine contribute to such a domestication, and shows that tropes of modern alienation appear as the underside of feminine enchantment. The analysis suggests that we must view the women’s magazine not as women’s space, but as a heterogeneous cultural space that intermittently reinforces masculine authority.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.018
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench Cultural StudiesSame topicFrench Historical and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207