Reflections in comics: the views of queer artists in producing body image comics and how their work can improve health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comics are an innovative way to translate health knowledge and research to service providers and communities. A theoretical framework intertwining poststructuralism and queer theory was used to explore the experiences of queer artists in the creation and production of body image comic anthology entitled Rainbow Reflections: Body Image Comics for Queer Men. The aim was to examine the beliefs of the artists about the potentiality of comics to address body image concerns for queer men. Body image concerns may create negative health experiences, isolation, loneliness, and sexual intimacy concerns. Nineteen self-identifying queer artists participated in the study. Discourse analysis revealed five threads of discourse that bring understanding on how comics can improve body image, and the health and well-being of both the artists through the act of creation and the reader through the act of consumption. Theses threads of discourse include: 1) Creating a unique language, 2) Revealing and healing themselves, 3) Exploring cultural influences, 4) Expanding spaces for queer men and their bodies, and 5) Connecting men. The findings reveal that comics can create knowledge and stimulate discussions about body image and has the potential to positively influence the health of queer men.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".