MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902263894 · doi:10.1080/2040610x.2018.1494361

Shameless comedy: investigating shame as an exposure effect of contemporary sexist and feminist rape jokes

2018· article· en· W2902263894 on OpenAlexaff
Mélanie Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueComedy Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHumor Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShameJokeComedyGender studiesConversationSociologyLaughterFeminismPsychologyPsychoanalysisSocial psychologyLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article adds to the conversation of controversial feminist humour by moving away from debates as to whether rape jokes can be funny or feminist and instead examining how they may impact feminist women and female sexual assault survivors. Beginning with a brief discussion of shame’s characteristics and uses, this work investigates various critical status difference factors including the kind of rape joke (sexist or feminist), the gender of the comedian, the composition of the audience, the social setting, and the level of trust, to determine how rape jokes create or alieve shame in female feminist audience members. By studying contemporary rape jokes from comedians including Daniel Tosh, Dave Chappelle, Jim Jefferies, Wanda Sykes, Amy Schumer, and Heather Jordan Ross, through an affective lens, this research shows that whereas sexist rape jokes told by male comedians to a mostly male audience may force women to experience shame (whether intentionally or unintentionally), feminist rape jokes told by female comedians are more likely to eliminate or prevent shame.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComedy StudiesSame topicHumor Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207