Response to Feminizing Rock Culture: A Revisit of Norma Coates’s “Teenyboppers, Groupies, and Other Grotesques”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| September 03 2019 Response to Feminizing Rock Culture: A Revisit of Norma Coates’s “Teenyboppers, Groupies, and Other Grotesques” Norma Coates Norma Coates 1Western University; Email: nocoates@gmail.com Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Journal of Popular Music Studies (2019) 31 (3): 55–56. https://doi.org/10.1525/jpms.2019.313007 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Norma Coates; Response to Feminizing Rock Culture: A Revisit of Norma Coates’s “Teenyboppers, Groupies, and Other Grotesques”. Journal of Popular Music Studies 3 September 2019; 31 (3): 55–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/jpms.2019.313007 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentJournal of Popular Music Studies Search I’m always a bit surprised when I find myself identified as a fan scholar or as a figure in Girlhood Studies. I did not set out to be either. I slowly realized that the responsible culprit is my 2003 article in this journal, “Teenyboppers, Groupies, and Other Grotesques: Girls and Women and Rock Culture in the 1960s and early 1970s.” The article started life as a dissertation chapter that did not really fit in the overall work but which I wanted to write anyway. I had thought about the subject for a long time, even before I changed careers and went to graduate school in the mid-1990s. That decade saw at least three “years of the woman,” but it seemed that women still had an uneasy place in rock music, its spaces, and especially rock criticism. The article represented my effort to think through the reasons why, using (perhaps overusing)... You do not currently have access to this content.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".