“Are We Watching the Same Video?”: On the Definition of the Situation and Audience Sense‐Making on Social Media about the Sexual Abuse Allegations Against Marilyn Manson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How situations are defined is a social process. This paper examines how users on YouTube make sense of the alleged sexual assault perpetrated by shock rocker Marilyn Manson in the 2007 “Heart Shaped‐Glasses (When the Heart Guides the Hand)” music video. Actor Evan Rachel Wood revealed in a 2022 documentary that she had been “essentially raped” by Manson in the video. Using qualitative media analysis, we collected and analyzed a total of 5466 user‐generated comments on YouTube posted in response to the “Heart‐Shaped Glasses” video after the publication of Wood's allegations. The research question that we explore is: How do users on YouTube understand the “Heart‐Shaped Glasses” video in light of Wood's allegations? Does the video depict a consensual simulated sex scene or is it documentation of a criminal sexual assault? Our analysis and findings reveal that users' interpretations of social cues provided in the video are subject to external forces of narration. Specifically, users draw explicitly and implicitly on both rape myths and on counter‐narratives stemming from the #MeToo movement to justify their support for Manson or for Wood, respectively. Media narratives about the “Heart‐Shaped Glasses” video and the user's orientation to the problem of sexual violence appear to be more salient social cues than the video footage itself in determining how commenters defined the video. These findings offer some insights specifically into how definitional processes, with respect to sexual violence, draw on socially established narratives, like rape myths or pro‐survivor activism. More generally, the findings provide a lens to consider how definitional processes operate in other kinds of situations in which the definition of actions recorded on video is contested. Video Abstract: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo7qxmTwA‐U .
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".