MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4251665681 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14652114.v1

Political Potential: The Women of Instagram Poetry

2021· preprint· en· W4251665681 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimia Rashidisisan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPoetryOppressionGatekeepingPower (physics)Gender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesLawLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Introduction]: The historical canon of poetry is predominantly male. The historical domain of policy making and politics is predominantly male. In the digital age, however, where the means to share or publish one’s thoughts and views is available to almost anyone, the strict gatekeeping of literature and political discourse is no longer upheld. The phenomenon of instapoetry, poetry published to Instagram, is an example of a social media platform being used by women to bring poetry into popular culture, and, by that means, address political issues surrounding womanhood. By addressing issues of female oppression, sexual assault, and race through poetry, female instapoets wield political power by raising awareness about these issues and influencing and mobilizing their young and female demographic to instigate social change. Rupi Kaur, a famous Canadian-Indian instapoet with 4 million Instagram followers, is an exemplar of the intersection of poetry, social media, and politics. Kaur’s female-centred content reaches millions of people and speaks to healing by way of self-help. Through her words and illustrations, readers are encouraged to think about the politics of being a woman today.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender, Feminism, and Media→French-language works237,207→