MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408279584 · doi:10.1525/jrpc.2025.aa109

Punk Rock Preachers, Straight Edge, and the Prophetic Imagination

2025· article· en· W4408279584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ross Haenfler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunkEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionArtAestheticsPhilosophyArt historySociologyArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers straight edge bands as having a “prophetic voice” in a seemingly “secular” subculture, simultaneously critiquing the present and envisioning an alternative future in the tradition of punk and many other forms of music. Straight edge is a global clean-living subculture with roots in the hardcore music scene. The author shows that collectively, straight edge “preachers” inspire many participants to action, to make changes in their lifestyles and engage in contentious politics. The scene and identity become reference points as participants expose and critique social inequalities including racism, patriarchy, and speciesism, amongst others. The author demonstrates that the prophetic imagination is collective, rather than individual; often “secular,” though still imbued with sacred meaning; and especially powerful when embodied by a diversity of marginalized voices. The author concludes by discussing the relationship between individuals, groups, and social structures, considering subcultures as meso-level “laboratories” where participants adopt, create, negotiate, practice, and contest broader social changes. Such groups and meso-level communities serve as spaces of experimentation, where participants engage at the micro-level with broader, macro-level problems.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207