Bibliographic record
Abstract
My dissertation furthers a conversation about beauty and the body in communication studies by considering how beauty standards, norms and practices operate within techniques and tactics of power in diverse modes of communication.Using an interdisciplinary approach, the dissertation re-figures 'beauty' as a meaningful concept, considering it not just as an instrument of (patriarchal) domination but also as part of techniques and tactics of resistance to domination.The claim of my dissertation is that beauty should be re-conceptualized in ways that counter the generally accepted notion of the term, particularly in the field of communication studies (Smith, 1990;Marvin, 2006), where media practices are held mainly to reproduce unattainable body ideals that are designed to keep women in positions of subordination (Bordo, 1993(Bordo, /2003;;Brand, 2000;Kilbourne, 2000;Wolfe, 1991).It also brings some nuances to cultural studies scholarship that suggests that the body is not only a natural entity but is often culturally produced in line with patriarchal, capitalist and racist interests (Collins, 1990;Hall, 1997;Phillips, 2004).Through an analysis of diverse practices of communication situated in different contexts, I investigate the ways in which beauty standardisation and normalisation practices can operate in processes of counter-hegemony.Operating from the starting point that beauty is a social construct and tied to communication and media practices, I examine its operation in different types and techniques of power and resistance using three case studies: 1) propaganda posters and face-to-face communication under German Fascism; 2) fashion blogging and social media practices; and 3) neo-burlesque theatre.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".