INTIMACIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA INFRASTRUCTURES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The breadth of what it means to study intimacies in the context of media has changed significantly in recent years because of current technological, social, and cultural changes. The digital mediation of intimacy - the changing attitudes, experiences, and practices of intimacy performed through digital media - demands that scholars look beyond well-established frameworks for studying intimacy and media, expanding their methodological and theoretical perspectives in order to fully comprehend intimate lifeworlds and the digital. This panel aims to examine the various intimacies - understood here as a range of affects, practices and sociocultural arrangements - that take place through and are reconfigured by digital media infrastructures. In particular, it aims to explore how digital infrastructures and intimate arrangements are intertwined, thereby challenging the assumptions that digital media's reconfigurations of intimacy are associated with either positive or negative outcomes. Through analytical approaches that interrogate the material complexities of digital media in relation to individuals' intimate lifeworlds, this panel's papers uncover the nuances of digitally mediated intimacies. They identify the opportunities that digital media infrastructures facilitate for representation, social connection and sexual excitement while acknowledging infrastructural influences in the reinforcement, commodification, and marginalization of particular expressions of intimacy. Through textual analysis, in-depth interviews, ethnography, and close readings of a range of digital media, from messaging apps to video sharing platforms, these studies generate thick data that exposes the often unseen digital media infrastructures running underneath, through and in the background of intimacies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".