Media, Masculinities and Other Interpretive Frameworks: Reflecting on Audience, Representation, Bodies and Mark Moss’ The Media and Models of Masculinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
asculinity is not fixed, natural, or immutable.Frank mort explains that masculinity is always in process (196).Raewyn Connell argues that there are multiple masculinities functioning at any given time.These masculinities are not types but patterns of practice and meaning structured by social, historical, and cultural conditions.David Buchbinder instructs that masculinities are relational and derive from each other (as well as femininities) their meanings, practices, values and significance.And Lynne Segal asserts that they are subject to change.It has been argued by Raewyn Connell that there is a hegemonic masculinity, an ideal rather than a reality, specific to particular cultural, social and historical settings.Given this, some masculinities are subordinated, marginalized, and work to protest the hegemony and others.These masculinities overlap and are not mutually exclusive.Mark Moss concludes that there are now more variations than ever before. Mark Moss' (2011) book The Media and the Models of Masculinitybegins from the social-constructionist perspective of gender to provide a historical account of how various models of masculinity are "conditioned, defined, or illustrated by different media" (179).He provides examples of how hegemonic masculinity is repeatedly verified through particular models of masculinity in the media.The focus in this book is on the U.S. and Canadian social, cultural and historical context.It M
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".