MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415295717 · doi:10.1177/10664807251384179

Taught to Hate, Longing to Belong: Misogyny and the Making of Masculinity in <i>Adolescence</i>

2025· article· en· W4415295717 on OpenAlexaff
Afarin Rajaei, C. Morton Hanna, Shakiba Fadaee Jonaghani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Family Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFilm in Education and Therapy
Canadian institutionsYorkville University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityNarrativeAction (physics)IdeologyMaking-ofFace (sociological concept)Psychological resilienceNarrative inquiry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the Netflix series Adolescence (2025) to explore how misogynistic ideologies influence the formation of masculinity during adolescence, emphasizing themes of hate, belonging, and digital socialization. Through narrative inquiry and cinema therapy lenses, the analysis reveals the profound psychological impacts of online misogyny and peer victimization, underscoring the dangerous allure of belonging that extremist digital communities offer vulnerable young males. Drawing upon experiences from working in juvenile detention centers, the authors highlight the ethical imperative to authentically represent marginalized adolescent narratives. Additionally, the article addresses systemic gaps in parental awareness, institutional accountability, and societal preparedness to mitigate these digital risks. Concluding with recommendations for integrated clinical, educational, and policy-based interventions, this article calls for collective action to foster healthier masculinities, emotional resilience, and digital literacy among adolescents navigating complex online landscapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Family JournalSame topicFilm in Education and TherapyFrench-language works237,207