Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This Research in Brief asks whether the implied reader of Canadian Business is gendered and exclusive of women, as claimed in the November 2013 Letters to the Editor of that magazine.Analysis To answer this question, the author examined article subjects, illustrative photographs, and textual signals of the implied reader in all the style and fashion articles (43 in total) published in the magazine over five years, 2010 to 2014.Conclusion and implications The analysis confirms the letter writers’ complaint that women readers are largely excluded from the implied audience of these articles.Keywords Magazines; Business media; Gender; Narratology; Implied readerContexte Cette Recherche en bref cherche à voir si le lecteur implicite de Canadian Business est mâle à l’exclusion des femmes, tel que le prétend une lettre à l’éditeur parue dans ce magazine en novembre 2013.Analyse Pour s’adresser à cette question, l’auteure a examiné des sujets d’articles, des photos représentatives et des interpellations du lecteur implicite pour tous les articles de style et de mode (43 en tout) publiés dans le magazine pendant cinq ans (de 2010 à 2014).Conclusion et implications L’analyse confirme la plainte dans la lettre à l’éditeur selon laquelle les lectrices ne comptent pas parmi les lecteurs implicites de ces articles.Mots clés Magazines; Médias d’affaires; Genre; Narratologie; Lecteur implicite
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".