State of the Field: The History of Masculinities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This State of the Field article discusses how, when and why the history of masculinities has emerged since the 1980s, and why it continues to be an important research field today. The article begins with the field's multiple origin stories and then discusses its expansion in chronology, geography and theme, as well as newer directions for masculinities in disability history, trans history and Indigenous history. Many scholars involved in this history over the years have openly wondered whether it remains useful, or whether analysing categories of privilege like masculinities only turns the lens back on men as default historical actors, to the detriment of marginalized peoples and themes. However, this article argues that the history of masculinities has done and continues to do important work in demonstrating to other academic disciplines that masculinities are never static or fixed but dynamic and shifting according to historical time and place. The article concludes that with the rights of women and transgender people increasingly under threat in the United Kingdom and North America as well as globally, it is essential for scholars to continue to historicize masculinities, patriarchal constructs and men's relationships to power. Historians are poised to help bridge the gap between the ivory tower and various publics, moreover, who continue to create and consume their own historical narratives about masculinized behaviours and expectations in the past and today.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it