Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter critiques fan studies’ work that has treated fandom as made up of cohesive “imagined communities.” Instead, it explores a “contact zones” model of transatlantic media fandoms. Examining fan accounts of “American monoculture,” it considers how practices of “Britpicking” in fan fiction communities assert the need for allegedly “authentic” fans to engage with the presumed cultural specificity of shows such as Sherlock (despite this being a UK-US coproduction). Britpicking thus occurs alongside “Brit-fixing,” where transnational TV drama is problematically recontextualized by fans as nationally “authentic.” Furthermore, “Ameri-picking” happens around US shows such as Supernatural when fanfic is written by non-Americans, while US fans also seek to distance themselves from imputed American monoculture, demonstrating that this is akin to “mainstream” versus “subcultural” distinctions. Finally, the chapter complicates assumptions of transatlantic fandom as a US-UK system of meaning by exploring the cultural positionings of Canadian fans of the UK soap opera Coronation Street.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".