MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127208094 · doi:10.26443/firr.v11i1.56

Brotherhood in Tension: The Militarized Appropriation of Homosocialism and Homoeroticism

2021· article· en· W3127208094 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juliette Croce

Bibliographic record

VenueFlux International Relations Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationMasculinityCultural appropriationInstitutionGender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceIdentity (music)LawAestheticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The military is an institution that relies on norms of masculinity allegedly to sustain social cohesion between units and its identity as a “brotherhood.” This reliance subordinates femininity within the military culture and ostracizes the feminized individuals who serve. Simultaneously and paradoxically, militaries integrate homosocial, homoerotic, and feminized behaviors within their practices, traditions, and norms. This article looks at how this appropriation manifests, particularly in the German Armed Forces, locating various feminized practices adopted by military units over the past century and the adverse consequences of this appropriation. In analyzing these behaviors, I argue that this appropriation at the heart of military identity perpetuates heterosexual, hypermasculine norms that the institution idealizes by reinforcing gendered and heteronormative boundaries. In turn, I contend that this further marginalizes feminized individuals in militarized settings, particularly gay 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.021
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlux International Relations ReviewSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207