A Good Match? Offline Matchmaking Services and Implications for Gender Relations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faced with barriers to successful coupling, namely disappointments with online dating, rising numbers of North Americans of varying ages and backgrounds are using personalized, offline matchmaking services to find long-term partners. However, few studies have examined the process interpretively from clients’ and matchmakers’ perspectives. Using interview data from 20 matchmakers and 10 heterosexual clients, content analyses of 102 company websites, and associated client comments and media coverage, this study queries connections between matchmaking’s growing popularity, (un)changing institutions, and gender relations. Analyses demonstrate that opportunities and constraints offered by the strategy are gendered, with men largely maintaining the partnering privileges they enjoy in other dating arenas and women making modest gains when participating as paying clients. Experiences are further shaped by age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it