MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415755947 · doi:10.1080/09518398.2025.2575809

Reclaiming representASIAN: how (South)East Asian drag queens on RuPaul’s Drag Race reconfigure queer Asian diasporic subjectivities

2025· article· en· W4415755947 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Ramnarine, Timothy Lim, Alex K. Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerDragRace (biology)EthnographyDiasporaSouth asia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Queer Asian diasporas often contend with a dual perception shaped by Western portrayals of being either “not attractive enough” or objects of racial fetishization. In 2024, the RuPaul’s Drag Race (RPDR) franchise saw a surge in Asian drag performers. Despite their growing visibility, there remains a gap in scholarship exploring how their distinct contributions to queer Asian representation (re)configure queer Asian subject formations in Western societies. Using various theoretical frameworks, we conceptualize Queer Asian Drag Pedagogy (QADP) to contest the racialized and gendered logics that underpin White reductionist narratives of queer Asian representation. Specifically, we analyze the performances of Marina Summers, Nymphia Wind, and Plastique Tiara on RPDR. Our conceptual QADP framework is built upon three tenets: decentralizing Whiteness, embodied kinship through cultural expression, and storying resistance, to dislocate the normative Eurocentric gaze that perpetuates racialized desirability and cultural essentialism that subjugates queer Asian diasporic identities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.391 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in EducationSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207