MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405360017 · doi:10.3138/jeunesse-2023-0051

A Successful Partnership: Gender Roles, the Ballroom, and the Rise of the Postmodern Princess in Disney’s Animated and Live-Action <i>Beauty and the Beast</i>

2024· article· en· W4405360017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostmodernismBeautyBallroomAction (physics)AestheticsGeneral partnershipArtVisual artsSociologyPolitical scienceLiteratureDance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, both Trousdale and Wise’s animated (1991) and Condon’s live-action (2017) productions, are often criticized for their perpetuation of traditional gender roles. While the ballroom scene(s) in both films are often a focal point of this criticism, a close reading of the choreography holds a subtext not often seen by the common viewer—one that illustrates a complex partnership with shifting roles rather than a static understanding of domineering male leads and dainty female follows. This article contextualizes the significance of dance in these adaptations as an expansion of the themes within the “Beauty and the Beast” hypotext and the performative aspects of gender within DanceSport subculture. Particularly prominent in Condon’s live-action remake, postmodern elements are incorporated into Belle and Beast’s waltz, where they disrupt traditional gender roles and take turns both leading and following in the dance. The themes of leading and following and the conformity/non-conformity of gender roles continue throughout the micro-narrative of the film’s multiple ballroom scenes, illustrating a shift from traditional gender roles to an equal partnership between both dancers on and off the dance floor.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207