MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199453211 · doi:10.1177/20570473211046733

The BTS sphere: Adorable Representative M.C. for Youth’s transnational cyber-nationalism on social media

2021· article· en· W3199453211 on OpenAlexaff
Dal Yong Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication and the Public · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalismCyberspaceXenophobiaConstructiveMedia studiesFandomSocial mediaContext (archaeology)SociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceThe InternetLawHistoryComputer scienceRacismPoliticsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BTS fandom has been one of the strongest, and many Adorable Representative M.C. for Youth members have dedicated themselves to protect BTS from numerous controversies, while promoting the group’s messages, which can be identified as cyber-nationalism. By employing a critical discourse analysis on BTS fans’ social media posts and their online activities surrounding a few incidents, this article attempts to develop cyber-nationalism in the context of the BTS fandom. It investigates the formation of transnational cyber-nationalism, and then discusses how Adorable Representative M.C. for Youth members as citizens in the BTS nation utilize cyberspace, in particular, social media, not only to form alliances but also to protect BTS from any critical points of view. Finally, it articulates how transnational cyber-nationalism in tandem with BTS has shifted the notion of cyber-nationalism, which can be identified as negative, even patriotic parochialism, into constructive and socio-culturally corrected cyber-movements.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.004
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication and the PublicSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207