MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214208414

Colourblind Racism Discourses in YouTube Review Videos of "Just Mercy"

2021· article· en· W3214208414 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Language Analysis
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismWhite (mutation)SociologyRace (biology)Gender studiesMedia studies
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current age of the COVID-19 pandemic with issues about race and discrimination becoming more apparent, many individuals turn towards media to learn more about race and racism in the world. Therefore, this research project aims to explore how white audiences are discussing films that depict race-based issues. “Just Mercy”, directed by Destin Daniel Cretton, depicts the true story of civil rights defence attorney Bryan Stevenson as they work to free wrongly convicted African Americans on death row. Using critical discourse analysis, this study explores whether colourblind racism discourses are present in how white audiences discuss the film “Just Mercy”. To do so, this project will be using Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s four frames of colourblind racism and Jayakumar and Adamian’s fifth frame of colourblind racism to analyze movie review videos published by white YouTubers. Through the analysis of these videos, the findings indicate that Jayakumar and Adamian’s fifth frame of colourblind racism is used more commonly by white individuals in racially conscious contexts than Bonilla-Silva’s initial four frames. Department: Sociology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Kalyani Thurairajah

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudent Research ProceedingsSame topicLinguistics and Language AnalysisFrench-language works237,207