Reflection: Lived and Idealized Self and Other in Women’s Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s magazines serve as sites of negotiation between prescriptive and descriptive practice – what women are told to do (in advertising, feature articles, and editorial copy, for example) and what they describe themselves as doing (in testimonials, interviews, columns, and letters to the editor). As such, they reinforce existing stereotypes of women’s roles through their editorials and advertising while also providing an outlet for women’s creative and life writing, opening avenues for lived and idealized selves and others. While this paradigm can account for the popularity of women’s magazines for both readers and advertisers, it fails to capture the dynamic and “contestatory” space that studies in this section of the book on “Gendered Space and Global Context” describe as constituting the genre. Consequently, we propose here a more nuanced paradigm, one foregrounding interplay and exchange of opinions – multidirectional rather than unidirectional – where the act of reading brings individual readers into contestatory negotiation with gender and body ideals, as well as with sociocultural norms from many parts of the world, not just China.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".