MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945974454 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.11540

For Girls: The Sexual Politics of Girls’ Comics in Post-War Britain

2018· article· en· W2945974454 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tegwyn Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComics and Graphic Narratives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComicsAdventurePoliticsGender studiesRace (biology)Variety (cybernetics)SociologyFace (sociological concept)HistoryMedia studiesLiteraturePolitical scienceSocial scienceArtLawArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will investigate girls’ comics in late 20th century Britain to illuminate the experiences of the adolescent post-war generation. My research focuses on girls’ comics, specifically Bunty, Mandy, and Judy, which were read widely throughout the country. The illustrated stories in these publications typically portrayed teenage girls as the protagonists in a variety of situations and adventures. By using the primary source documents of the comics as the main basis for my research, I explore the following questions: to what extent did the comics reflect the changing assumptions about gender and gender expectations in British society from the 1950s to 1970s? Did girls feel empowered by the stories they read, or did they feel like they had to conform to a certain ideal of womanhood produced by gender norms? How were these ideals configured by race, especially by Caribbean migration in post-war Britain? By examining this small portion of British popular culture and its reception, I will gain a wider understanding of fluid and dynamic ideas about gender in these crucial decades of the late 20th century.

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)0.003
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicComics and Graphic NarrativesFrench-language works237,207