Where is Daddy?: The visual portrayal of fatherhood in modern parenting magazines from 1994-2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By analyzing the media‟ s portrayal of fathers in modern Canadian society over the last 15 years, this thesis examines the role of Western media in its depiction of the father role, and its subsequent impact on Western society‟ s working ideology of fatherhood. Today's Parent magazine, established in 1984, was selected for in- depth analysis because it is Canada‟ s primary national parenting magazine ( read by 1.8 million Canadians each month); is published frequently ( 12 times per year on a monthly basis); and contains a gender- neutral title which implies that its content is applicable to all parents, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, or economic class. In my analysis, I adopt elements of Marxist theory which argues that the parenting magazines promoting these family lifestyles are an important part of the superstructure used to reinforce the class system and elements of Feminist theory which argues that gendered divisions are so heavily promoted in parenting magazines because they benefit men, thus ensuring a continued standard of divided gender roles and responsibilities, as well as the inevitable continuation of female subjugation. My primary goal was to determine whether or not the magazine‟ s visual portrayal of fatherhood has changed over the allotted time period. After conducting my own methodological research, I found that fathers continue to be visually underrepresented and stereotyped based on the ages of the children presented with them as well as the activities they are involved in. The magazine continues to propagate perceived norms and stereotypes regarding gendered parenting roles, with the majority of its visual content directed at the assumed interests of women/ mothers rather than men/ fathers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".