MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885574139 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2019v44n3a3375

Programming Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: Infrastructural Failures in ‘Feminist’ Dating App Bumble

2018· article· en· W2885574139 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rena Bivens, Anna Shah Hoque

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionMasculinitySociologyHuman sexualityGender studiesLigneHumanitiesFeminismPhilosophyPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Bumble is a self-declared “feminist” dating app that gives women control over initiating conversations with potential matches. Analysis Through a material-semiotic analysis of Bumble’s software and online media about the app, this article critically investigates how gender, sex, and sexuality are produced and given meaning by Bumble’s programmed infrastructure.Conclusions and implications Since the epistemological underpinnings of Bumble’s design centre gender as the solitary axis of oppression, the authors argue that the app’s infrastructure generates an ontological relationship between gender, sex, and sexuality that narrows the capacity to achieve its creators’ stated social justice objectives. Several infrastructural failures are detailed to demonstrate how control and safety are 1) optimized for straight cisgender women, and 2) contingent on the inscription of an aggressive form of masculinity onto straight male bodies.RÉSUMÉ Contexte Bumble est une application de rencontres prétendument « féministe » qui donne aux femmes le pouvoir d’initier des conversations avec des compagnons potentiels.Analyse Cet article effectue une analyse sémiotique matérielle de Bumble et de commentaires en ligne sur cette application dans le but d’examiner comment l’infrastructure programmée de Bumble produit le genre, le sexe et la sexualité et leur donne du sens.Conclusions et implications Bumble a une perspective épistémologique selon laquelle le genre est la seule source d’oppression. Or, d’après les auteurs, ce point de vue encourage un rapport ontologique entre genre, sexe et sexualité qui entrave la capacité des créateurs à atteindre leurs objectifs de justice sociale. Cet article recense plusieurs échecs infrastructurels de l’application afin de montrer comment le contrôle et la sécurité 1) conviennent principalement aux femmes cisgenres hétérosexuelles et 2) supposent une masculinité agressive inscrite sur des corps mâles hétérosexuels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207