MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943433764 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v8i2.493

Gimp Sue Gets the Girl: Disability in Twilight Fanfiction

2019· article· en· W2943433764 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Olivia Dreisinger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTwilightGirlScholarshipHuman sexualityIntellectual disabilityCoping (psychology)Gender studiesDisability studiesPsychoanalysisPsychologySociologyMedia studiesLawPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While many fan studies scholars have written about the Mary Sue through gender and sexuality, disability is often entirely overlooked. I take up this gap in scholarship in the following paper, looking at the various intersections between disability and Twilight fanfiction. I look closely at two Disabled!Twilight fanfics written by disabled authors—LisbethsGirlfriend’s Forgive Me for Loving You, and The Plasma’s Coping with Change. Through their respective fics, these disabled Mary Sues, or Gimp Sues, address issues of sex, disability, and coming out, questioning just who has the right to tell stories, and what stories get told.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative FictionFrench-language works237,207