YOU’RE LOOKING VERY SHANE TODAY: RHETORICAL FIELD METHODS & THE MATERIALITY OF QUEER MEDIATED REPRESENTATION FOR SAPPHIC WOMEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When marginalized communities are left without real-life mentors, they often turn to media as a guide. In this project I assert that mediated sapphic woman characters impact the identity development and everyday experiences for sapphic women in material ways. I explore what mediated narratives sapphic women consume and analyze how these messages become symbolic rhetorical tools that queer women rhetorically mobilize to narrativize and negotiate their queer identities. To achieve this goal, I utilized rhetorical field methods by interviewing 20 queer women ranging from the ages of 25-40 in dyadic, semi structured interviews. These women use varying terms to label their sexualities such as lesbian, queer, and bisexual and live in the United States and Canada. Through my rhetorical analysis of these interviews, I found three primary ways that queer women mobilize encoded messages within queer media as an interlocutor to assist in their queer identity development. First, these women use queer media as a form of validation, making queer media a rhetorical instrument. Second, queer women dialectically read media through oppositional/preferred and negotiated lenses to cultivate aspirational possibilities for their futures. Lastly, queer women mobilize media’s romantic and sexual scripts as guides to engage in romantic, sexual, and platonic relationships. These findings resulted in the implication that rhetoricians must continue to investigate the ways that queer media materially impacts the realities of marginalized communities. On a more macro scale, this project’s findings also implicate the nuance that can come from taking to the field to study media and the fleshly experiences of marginalized communities.
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 | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".