MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160050023 · doi:10.1177/1461444812459171

Sexting as media production: Rethinking social media and sexuality

2012· article· en· W2160050023 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Media & Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
KeywordsBlameChampionPornographySocial mediaMass mediaProduction (economics)AnonymityHuman sexualityDigital mediaSociologyInternet privacyPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceAdvertisingBusinessLawComputer scienceGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the responses to teen sexting are ineffective and unjust: authorities sometimes blame the victims of nonconsensual sexting, use harsh child pornography laws against minors, and give teenagers the advice to simply abstain. While some scholars champion girls’ media production practices, mass media coverage of girls’ social media use since the early 2000s emphasizes concerns that girls are creating and sharing sexual content. In this paper, I illustrate and challenge common concerns about the negative effect of digital and mobile media on how girls communicate and who they can communicate with. I argue that thinking about sexting as media production would encourage researchers to pay more attention to the opportunities of social media as well as the risks. Thinking about consensual sexting as an act of media authorship also pushes models of media production to better account for the privacy rights of people who create social media content.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.244 · 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