Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black Maleness as a Deleterious Categoryblack male studies has demanded a reappraisal of the previous scholarship concerning the role that maleness, manhood, and masculinity have played in white patriarchal societies for Black men in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere (Curry, 2017a).This collection of essays is a welcomed advancement of the conversation.With authors writing from all over the world, Appealing Because He Is Appalling builds on various interdisciplinary tools alongside the psychosexual perspectives of Fanon and Baldwin to reframe dominant narratives of Black male experience.Current analyses of Black males found in history, feminist thought, and popular culture literature are dominated by narratives emphasizing the lack, hypermasculinity, or sexism of Black males.This collection of essays is critical to challenging and changing these narratives.In order to understand the significance of this book's contribution to the field of Black male studies, however, it is first necessary to understand both the field itself and the broader landscapes of which it is a part. Unpacking Black Male StudiesThe dominant view of Black masculinity presented by intersectional and Black feminist theories in American universities asserts that Black men are less powerful white men and that they desire power and embrace social hierarchy in order to dominate Black women and other marginalized Black groups in the Black community (cf.Cooper, 2006;White, 2008).
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.357 | 0.285 |
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".