“Pretty Tough and Pretty Hard”: An Intersectional Analysis of Krump as Seen on <i>So You Think You Can Dance</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Krump, a form of street dance that is often characterized as aggressive and unique in its expression, has received little attention in academic scholarship. Research that has been published has largely focused on the American-made documentary RIZE (2005), with critiques emerging regarding its problematic-racialized representations of krump. No literature to date has focused on krump and its performances of gender. In the present study, the authors explored representations of krump on the popular dance competition television show, So You Think You Can Dance (SYTYCD) and YouTube comments posted in relation to said performances. Analysis of qualitative materials was influenced by the tenets of intersectionality, with the aim of understanding the interconnectedness of gender and race in popular representations of krump. Emergent and intersecting themes included performing hardness, negotiation of idealized gender performances, the reproduction of traditional notions of whiteness and blackness, and ghettoization.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".