Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME Because of both cultural and technological changes, North Americans are currently exposed to an unprecedented amount of ethnic-based humour, much of which is insider joking coming from members of various groups who use it as a means to develop and reflect group pride. Special interest groups including feminists, gays, and disabled people have followed the lead of groups in creating their own humour as a replacement for speech. As more of this humour is created and put into the public arena, people are beginning to realize that there are tremendous differences within groups, and much of the humour focuses on revealing these differences. Another realization is that while particular groups have common characteristics that make their humour unique, for example, the language play of bi- or multi-lingual Jews, the native traditions carried over from West Africa by slaves, actions of American Indian clowns and tricksters, and the magical realism that is part of Hispanic cultures, the humour that becomes popular with mainstream audiences has been Americanized. It is as if mainstream audiences do not really want values to be the main ingredient. Instead, they want ethnicity to serve as a spice to lend new flavour to old jokes or even as frosting that will hide the fact that the humour is coming largely from the perspective of mainstream listeners or readers. Grace aux changements culturels et technologiques, les Nord-americains se trouvent devant une variete sans precedent d'humour ethnique, la plupart duquel est cache, c'est-a-dire, qui vient des membres du groupe qui utilise l'humour comme moyen d'engendrer et reflechir leur solidarite Certain groupes, tels les feministes, le gais, et les handicapes, ont suivi l'exemple des groupes ethniques en creant leur propre humour comme lutte contre le langage de la haine. Au fur et a mesure que ce genre d'humour est cree et rentre dans le discours public, les gens se rendent compte qu'il existe de grandes differences a l'interieur de chaque groupe et que l'humour joue sur l'exposition de ces differences. Aussi, tandis que chaque groupe ethnique a des caracteristiques en commun qui rendent leur humour unique, par exemple, les jeux de mots des juifs bi- ou multi-lingues, les traditions des Africains apportees au nouveau monde par les esclaves, les jeux des clowns Amerindiens, et le realisme magique qui fait partie de la culture hispanique, l'humour ethnique qui devient populaire avec le public dominant a subi un processus d' americanisation. C'est comme si le public dominant ne veut pas que les valeurs des groupes ethniques soient l'ingredient principal. Par contre, il prefere que le caractere ethnique serve d'epice pour ranimer les vieilles plaisanteries et meme comme glacage pour masquer le fait que l'humour vient largement du point de vue du public dominant. ********** At no previous time in American and Canadian history has there been such a flood of ethnic-based It is seen in popular films, plays, novels, musicals, television sitcoms, late-night talk shows, cartoons, comic strips, commercial and in-print advertisements, and on internet websites and chat rooms, while even the most edgy humour from comedy concerts is broadcast on cable television. This is a huge change from ten or fifteen years ago when, in the name of political correctness, people were routinely cautioned against using It is even more of a change compared to forty or fifty years ago when most humour was derogatory in nature and was what today is usually referred to as hate speech rather than ethnic humour. The following points were made by Leon Rappaport, a psychologist from Kansas State University, when he spoke on 15 June 2005 at the annual meeting of the International Society for Humor Studies held at Youngstown University in Ohio. Rappaport, along with conference attendees in different sessions, went on to talk about several factors that contributed to this change: --Most of today's ethnic-related humour is based on satire and ridicule of widely understood stereotypes. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".