MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997115700 · doi:10.1177/2056305119894000

“There’s something compelling about real life”: Technologies of security and acceleration on Chaturbate

2019· article· en· W2997115700 on OpenAlexafffund
Antonia Hernández

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Media + Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExploitPerforming artsComputer scienceValue (mathematics)PerceptionHuman–computer interactionQuality (philosophy)Articulation (sociology)Computer securityPsychologyVisual artsPoliticsEpistemologyLawArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult webcam platforms, or sexcams, can be considered platforms for the laboring of affect: machines that exploit, accelerate, and capitalize on it. As expected, the primary source of value is the broadcast of sexual performances. However, this article argues, the extraction of value on sexcam platforms relies as well on some of the early established conventions of webcamming, such as the perception of real-time and real-life. The location and quality of the shows are relevant for these reasons, along with the various sorts of personal interactions between the audience and performers. While some of these interactions resemble personal or human ones, the characteristics and scale of exchange that the platform enables, with thousands of viewers connected at the same time demanding the attention of one performer, require new technologies of assistance that involve humans and software—and some entanglements in between. Those technologies are located in the tension of generating value by accelerating exchanges while preserving the attributes that give them value in the first place. This article identifies some of the actors involved and investigates how they contribute to this double articulation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Media + SocietySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207