Adolescence through the Looking-Glass: Ideology and the Represented Child in Degrassi: The Next Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In lieu of an abstract, here is an excerpt from this article: My specific focus in this paper is on the complexity that emerges between the “open,” apparently cacophonic form of the soap opera—what scholars of television studies would call, drawing on the work of Roland Barthes, a polysemic text, “one in which the reader or audience is encouraged or able to construct a wide range of readings” (Casey, et al. 167)—and individual scripts that retain elements of didacticism and manipulation from the young adult problem novel. This distinction pertains specifically to what Jason Mittell identifies as “the ongoing longform narrative structure of series television” (29), in terms of an ongoing story told in fragments across several weekly episodes by a team of writers. In other words, although there is always the possibility of multiple readings (a term I favour over the negative connotations of Livingstone’s term “misinterpretation”) of this series or any television text, many of the Degrassi storylines appear concerned with guiding their viewers toward clearly preferred readings of the resolution’s ideological message, using the visual language of television—such as close-up shots, dialogue, pacing, and scene breaks—to replace the codes of adolescent problem fiction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".