MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133011322

Our televisions, our selves: popular (in)visiblity, marginalized identities and the politics of Queer as folk

2006· dissertation· W7133011322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wendy Kathleen Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepictionQueerLesbianPopularityPopular culturePoliticsHomosexualityReading (process)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What happens when groups who have been marginalized within popular culture become privileged enough to gain complex televisual representation? The U.S. cable television show Queer As Folk (QAF) aired in Canada from 2000 to 2005 depicting a White, middle-class community of gays and lesbians. The show's popularity makes it a promising site to study gay men's emergence into complex televisual representation. First, I outline a brief history of gay and lesbian representation on television and explore tensions that arise when popular visibility of marginalized identities is entangled in commodity culture---when communities of resistance become "niche markets." I then conduct a critical textual analysis, using Hall's notion of the preferred reading, to argue that QAF offered a depiction of White, middle-class gay men that transgressed against the ideal sexual citizen, while couching its transgressions within White supremacy, the superiority of the middle and upper-classes, and male privilege. Finally, to counter this relatively closed reading of the series, I offer an audience reception study of forty avid QAF viewers who participated in this study through an email-circulated survey, focus groups and personal interviews. I explore how viewers "use" QAF outside the time-space of viewing to build their personal identities as gays, lesbians, queers and gay-positive straights, to participate in "conversational communities," and as a source of knowledge about communities or practices they do not have personal experience with. I trace the negotiations viewers make as they view the show as simultaneously "over-the-top, unreal entertainment" and "a real depiction of queer life" that acts as a valid source of information about "gay culture." Additionally, I highlight how viewers read "critically" in rather different ways, and interpret the same QAF image as hegemonic or counter-hegemonic depending on the intertextual comparisons they make and the "real world" knowledge they bring to bear on the representation. This dissertation explores the political economy of "gay TV" in the early 2000s, offers a critical and qualitative textual analysis of QAF, and details viewers' readings of the series that exceed and complicate the binaries of oppositional and dominant, hegemonic and counter-hegemonic, demanding a more complex frame for analysis.

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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.392 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→