MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380925712 · doi:10.3138/ctr.109.002

Gendered Bodies and High School Girls: Devising Theatre

2002· article· en· W4380925712 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kathleen Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionGender studiesDietingSubject (documents)Race (biology)Sexual orientationSociologyPsychologyPoliticsMedicinePolitical scienceObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To posit women in the position of subject, to make their everyday lives the victuals of theatre creation, is a conspicuous place to begin. This means – in the case of adolescent girls – that we are beginning with their gendered (classed, racialized, stigmatized), and often objectified bodies. Here is what we know in Canada about adolescent girls’ relationships to their bodies, or the impact of oppression on the female body: 80-90 per cent of young women come to dislike their bodies, 70 per cent are weight preoccupied, 40 per cent engage in yo-yo dieting, and up to 20 per cent develop more serious and health-threatening eating problems (Russell and Rice 21-3). In fact, Vanessa Russell, student program worker for the Toronto Board of Education, and Carla Rice, coordinator of the Women and Body Image Project at Women’s College Hospital, have found that in the time between childhood and adolescence, much of the oppression girls and young women of all races, classes, and sexual orientations experience occurs through their bodies – whether the oppression is based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, physical ability, or a combination of these factors.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicGender Roles and Identity Studies→French-language works237,207→