Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SlutWalk movement turned into a massive global feminist movement no one saw coming. SlutWalk’s aim was to challenge the social normative blame of sexual assaults, and discourses that have historically imbued negative connotations to the term “slut.” This paper argues that the movement’s message has become undermined by the powerfully patriarchal hegemonic mass media, and focuses on analyzing and investigating the representation surrounding the participants of this movement in the Toronto Star. This paper uses a feminist perspective and Gramsci’s hegemony framework as lenses for critical analysis. The first section of the paper explores the historical and social manifestation of patriarchy, and how previous feminist movements have challenged its unequal oppressive and subjective nature. The section notes that despite the decades of past women’s movements to gain greater gender equality, sexual assault is still a prevalent issue today and presents the issue that sparked the SlutWalk movement, the movement’s message, and what it set out to accomplish/challenge. The second section explores Antonio Gramci’s theory of hegemony between the mass media and the public sphere. It focuses on different theories and strategies of manipulation, and the framing of various representations of groups and individuals by the mass media. The third section focuses on the chosen methodology, a relatively small qualitative discourse analysis, utilizing non-random sampling to gather three Toronto Star articles. The discourse analysis solely focuses on the discourse of the Star’s descriptions of the participants of SlutWalk. The findings suggest that the Toronto Star does misrepresent the SlutWalk participants and their messages, by undermining them through the use of a particularly narrow discourse that emphasizes their appearance, while diluting the key social issues they are challenging.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".