Fighting for What is Right: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Fan Campaign to Save <em>Anne with an E</em> from Cancellation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Anne with an E fan campaign highlighted storylines of social issues that fans felt were important for society. Of particular interest to the fan community was a storyline from the series in which Anne and her friends organized a protest following incidents of sexual assault and censorship aimed at silencing girls from speaking out on gendered issues. This storyline was heavily referenced in the billboards that the fan-based campaign displayed in Toronto and New York City (Anne Nation, 2020). In this analysis, I used fantasy theme analysis (Bormann, 1972) and metaphorical criticism (Osborn, 2018) to conduct a visual and textual rhetorical analysis of billboard advertisements from the campaign in conversation with the television episodes that the billboards referenced. The billboards were found to contain visual rhetoric and metaphors that represented Anne’s feminist values as a rationale for the fan-based community’s own rhetorical vision, which emphasized fighting for what is right and making their voices heard. I conclude with implications, limitations, and future directions for research of fan-based campaigns as part of social movements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".