MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801302761 · doi:10.3138/cjfs.18.2.87

“Which Way You Goin’ Billy?”: Masculinity, Genre, and Self-Reflexivity in Hard Core Logo

2009· article· fr· W2801302761 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Robert Lamont Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Film Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtRelation (database)Hard coreArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article, j’explore le thème de la masculinité dans le « rockumentaire » Hard Core Logo, réalisé par Bruce McDonald en 1996. Plus précisément, j’examine comment McDonald puise dans deux genres, le road movie et le pastiche de documentaire (documenteur) pour explorer la socialité des hommes entre eux ainsi que la valeur accordée par ceux-ci à la domination. J’analyse d’abord le film comme un road movie et j’examine les relations entre les membres du groupe punk Hard Core Logo. Je porte une attention spéciale sur la relation entre le guitariste Billy Talent et le chanteur Joe Dick, amitié homoérotique et possiblement homosexuelle, mais aussi caractérisée par le désir de domination de Joe envers Billy. Ensuite, je porte mon attention sur la relation entre le personnage fictif du réalisateur et le groupe ; cette relation est aussi caractérisée par une volonté de domination. Je propose de considérer que parce qu’il s’inspire de plusieurs genres et qu’il utilise divers modes de réflexivité et d’intertextualité, Hard Core Logo offre une critique convaincante de certaines normes masculines.

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)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Film StudiesSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207