Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholarship on #MeToo has examined the feminist underpinnings of the movement and affordances of digital platforms to create space for telling stories of sexual harassment and violence. This essay makes a different contribution, in that we seek to understand the impact of the viral version of #MeToo on the established primarily Black community developed by Tarana Burke. In this essay, we use the framework of intersectionality and organizational paradox to examine the differences in the social construction of the two versions of the movement. The framework of intersectionality allows us to examine how the viral version of #MeToo perpetuated by Alyssa Milano reified the social construction of inequalities and interlocking systems of oppression for Black and other women of color. The article examines the effects of Milano’s entrance into the “me too” space on the community built through Burke’s “me too” movement. We identify an illumination/occlusion paradox that creates the illusion of inclusivity, creates difficulty in community boundary management, and allows for outsider gaze into a previously safe space. We argue for moving beyond the considerations of assigning credit for the movement and instead consider the impacts of the paradox of the original community experiencing erasure through the abrupt and swift increased visibility of the hashtag.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".