MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406395669 · doi:10.7202/1115468ar

Survivor Tales: Feminist Graphics Bridging Consciousness Raising into Reality

2024· article· en· W4406395669 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Croswell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Talent Development and Creativity · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Technology, and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)ConsciousnessRaising (metalworking)GraphicsAestheticsComputer scienceArtComputer graphics (images)EpistemologyEngineeringPhilosophyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines two feminist comic representations of violence against women founded in the lived experiences of artists Sabrina Jones, and Rebecca Migdal, editors with the annual graphic anthology World War 3 Illustrated. In these visual narratives, the reader is introduced to the impact violence, visible and invisible, has on these women’s lives as they recollect events, and move on from their painful experiences. Far from offering a commiseration of pain, a function which Susan Sonntag attributes to disaster and war photography in Regarding the pain of others, these graphics (or comics) project empathy, while also empowering readers by providing a sense of ‘what’s next?’ Also embedded in this analysis is an examination of the cultural roots of misogyny, through which violence against women and gendered ‘others’ is operationalised. Through their multimodal visual and narrative retelling of the harmful impact violence and the threat of violence had on their lives, Jones’ and Migdal’s graphics offer resolution and an opportunity for consciousness raising about the issues facing survivors of male violence. Their resistance gives voice to the experience of threats and abuse, and shares wisdom throughout it all.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Talent Development and CreativitySame topicArt, Technology, and CultureFrench-language works237,207