MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206602824

Queer Imagery and Codes of Masculinity in 1980s American Beer Advertising

2019· article· en· W3206602824 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henry Jennings

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks (Central Washington University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityQueerAdvertisingSociologyGender studiesBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the ways that 1980s beer advertisements portrayed men and masculinity, and the expectations for men that these ads communicated through their imagery. In the 1980s, beer advertisements began to focus more on groups of men and their activities rather than individual men simply consuming beer, as was more common in the period between the end of prohibition in 1933 and the late 1970s. Women are also not present in many of these 1980s advertisements, which instead opt to show men enjoying each other’s company in various, often competitive, settings. These advertisements also depict men engaging in nonsexual physical contact, putting forth guidelines for when and how men may touch each other and still maintain their masculinity. Existing scholarship focuses on depictions of masculinity in the beer advertising of other countries, like Canada and New Zealand. I apply historical, sociological, and queer scholarship to American beer advertisements. By applying these types of scholarship to beer advertisements, I will examine the queer undertones present in advertising targeted specifically at men. I utilize advertisements from the period to argue that 1980s beer advertisements communicated a strict code to American men for the ways that they should interact with other 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks (Central Washington University)Same topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207