MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402097618 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v15n1p180

Emak-Emak Representation in Start-Up Ads: Verbal and Non-Verbal Analysis of Indonesian Moms

2024· article· en· W4402097618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonius Setyawan Sugeng Nur Agung, Monika Widyastuti Surtikanti, Erna Andriyanti, Pipit Muliyah, Fitria Wulan Sari, Arif Nugroho, Fitriya Dessi Wulandari

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKementerian Keuangan Republik IndonesiaLembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan
KeywordsIndonesianRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceNonverbal communicationNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsPsychologyCommunicationPolitical sciencePoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women stereotyping is always interesting to be discussed. This paper is concerned with verbal and non-verbal meanings to portray Indonesian moms, or Emak-Emak represented in two official videos of GoMart and GrabMart. This study owes the framework of Halliday’s transitivity system (2014) to analyse the verbal meaning and Kress & Leeuwen’s interpretation of visual grammar to analyse the non-verbal meanings. The outcome of the verbal analysis using transitivity shows that the procedures used by GrabMart and GoMart are focused differently. While GrabMart focuses more on the material process of “doing” rather than “happening”, GoMart tends to emphasis on the relational process of “attributive” and primarily on “identification”. GoMart portrays Emak-Emak's stereotypes more objectively, whereas GrabMart is more subjective to shape the viewer's perception of them. This study offers recommendations for future research by taking a comprehensive approach to the phenomenon of gender stereotyping in online audio-visual advertisements, analyzing the interaction of verbal and non-verbal meanings in various advertisements, thoroughly examining the relevant stream of metafunctions, and proposing ideas.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207