Bibliographic record
Abstract
The male youth in our study used video games to resist institutional authority, hegemonic masculinity, and femininity. Videogame play offered them a safe place to resist authority, which was often limited to small acts of adolescent defiance that could limit their future ability to engage thoughtfully and critically in the world. This resistance shaped and reinforced their identity formation and supported their resistance to traditional literacy practices they considered more feminine. Adults were absent from their play; hence they had no mentorship in critiquing the worldview presented in videogames. Key words: masculinity, identity, critical literacy, alternative literacies Dans cette étude, les garçons se sont servis de jeux vidéo pour résister à l’autorité institutionnelle ainsi qu’à une représentation hégémonique de la masculinité et de la la féminité. Ces jeux leur offraient un espace dans lequel ils pouvaient en toute sécurité opposer une résistance à l’autorité sous la forme de modestes gestes de défi typiques des adolescents. Ces gestes risquaient toutefois de limiter leur capacité future de s’engager dans le monde avec sérieux et en faisant preuve d’un esprit critique. Cette résistance a façonné et renforcé leur identité et concordait avec leur contestation des méthodes de littératie traditionnelles qu’ils considéraient comme plutôt féminines. Les adultes étaient absents lors de leurs jeux ; les jeunes n’avaient donc pas de mentors pour critiquer la vision du monde présentée dans les jeux vidéo. Mots clés : masculinité, identité, littératie, esprit critique, littératies alternatives.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".