Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following chapter will illustrate how women of color (WOC) fans navigate and participate in comics fandom, and how fan participation does not need to be visible to be meaningful for fans. Despite greater conversations around racial and gender diversity and inclusion in comics, gatekeeping on the basis of racism and sexism persists. In fan studies and comics studies, there is also a call for greater engagement with race in scholarly examination. Therefore, this chapter examines how WOC fans draw on their intersectional positionalities to inform and shape their fan identity and participation. This chapter draws on 14 ethnographic semi-structured interviews with self-identifying WOC comic fans from Canada and the United States. Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts to identify and examine commonalities and differences between participants’ experiences. From this analysis, this chapter focuses on two thematic findings, Love of Reading and Reflection as a Fan Practice, to illustrate how intersectional identities, interests, and practices in and beyond comics fandom inform WOC fans’ participation. These two themes highlight how WOC fans rendered racial and gendered gatekeeping ineffective and how they locate comics in multiple areas of their lives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".