Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the emergence of punk in the 1970s, the genre had always been at best almost completely male-dominated, and at worst, a tool of misogyny. In 1990, Riot Grrrls forced their way onto the scene in a blaze of feminist rage. Although there had been women in punk before the 90s, the Riot Grrrl movement signified the intentional and specific synthesis of punk and feminism (Jacques 2001). On both a lyrical and grassroots action level, the Riot Grrrl movement empowered femininity and attempted to sever punk from the patriarchy. This paper will analyze the success of these strategies and determine to what extent Riot Grrrls succeeded in their mission of feminine empowerment, where they failed, how they interacted with the mainstream, and how they were often exclusionary. Drawing from interviews with prominent Riot Grrrl artists, the focus of this paper will be how Riot Grrrls treated their demographics, how they either valued or diminished femininity, and how the movement impacted individuals and society. Although the Riot Grrrl movement advanced feminism in many essential ways, including reclaiming femininity, breaking down the male domination of the punk scene, and speaking out against oppression in all forms, the movement often fell short in practicing the revolutionary inclusion and acceptance they preached. Whether consciously or subconsciously, the movement at times excluded people of color, people of different body shapes, and queer people. Overall the movement took an important stand against oppression and should continue to be celebrated and nurtured, though with a critical eye on how the movement can be exclusionary.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".