Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses a life course perspective and in-depth qualitative interviews to examine binge-watchers’ perceptions of their television viewing practices. Three central life course principles organizing this analysis are: 1. trajectories, transitions, and turning points, as well as the concepts of 2. social and historical context, and 3. linked lives. Findings suggest that respondents’ evaluation of binge-watching is conditioned by their past experiences, institutional shifts in media production and consumption, Western norms of productivity, and the television viewing practices of their family and friends. Through a life course perspective, this article maps the ways in which these factors collectively shape the experiences and attitudes of Canadian binge-watchers. Importantly, this study adds to the limited sociological scholarship on binge-watching by using a life course perspective to demonstrate the ways in which the television viewing practices of binge-watchers are informed by a complex array of social and personal factors. In using a life course perspective, this article is able to connect the binge-watching experience to long-term changes in one’s television viewing habits as they occur in social and biographical context, thereby enabling a holistic and multidimensional examination of binge-watchers’ interpretations of how, why, and when they watch television.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".