MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388980965 · doi:10.55016/ojs/muj.v1i2.77485

The People vs Megan Thee Stallion

2023· article· en· W4388980965 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwademilade Odusola

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Motley Undergraduate Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFandomPornographySociologyHarmEconomic JusticeSubversionMedia studiesCognitive reframingArtGender studiesPsychoanalysisPsychologyLawSocial psychologyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay explores the online response to hip-hop artist Megan Thee Stallion and the shooting incident involving her and fellow rapper Tory Lanez. In this essay, the theories of spreadable misogyny, by Suzanne Scott, and anti-fandom, by Jonathan Gray, are employed to examine the ways in which Stallion's anti-fans engaged in spreadable misogynoir towards her, particularly in the aftermath of the shooting. The essay analyzes the dynamics of online fandom, the reframing of Stallion as a culprit rather than a victim, and the erasure of her identity as a Black woman. It discusses the ways in which memes, and commentary on the situation by fans, anti-fans, and other celebrities were used to minimize the Stallion-Lanez shooting and the effect that had on Stallion, other Black female celebrities and other Black women. The essay also highlights the complex position Black women are placed in when seeking justice for themselves. Furthermore, it investigates the emergence of a faux fandom for Lanez built on demonizing Stallion. Through an examination of social media reactions, memes, and public discourse, this essay highlights the pervasive misogynoir faced by Stallion and Black women in and outside the music industry and the challenges they encounter in asserting their autonomy and seeking justice for the harm done to them by their male counterparts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Motley Undergraduate JournalSame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207