Revisiting Women and the Electric Guitar:: Why the Research Needs to be Updated and Expanded
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the state of the research on women and the electric guitar and argues that there is a strong need for further research in this area. Existing scholarship primarily focuses on factors that inhibit women from playing the electric guitar, is mostly centered on offline/pre-Internet women and guitar relations and tends to link the electric guitar with masculinity and male sexuality and characterize it as a male-dominated practice. This means that the reasons why women do play the electric guitar are not given much attention, the Internet’s impact on women’s guitar practice is largely omitted, and other ways of approaching the relationship between gender and the electric guitar are given minimal consideration. I argue that all of these aspects are vital for better understanding women and the electric guitar, and for advancing the cause of gender equality in music and are therefore in urgent need of further research.
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 | 0.035 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.044 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".