A finding aid to the pornographic imaginary: implications of amateur classifications on/by reddit’s NSFW411
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this article is to ‘bring’ reddit and its user communities into porn and information studies and to argue that its unique features offer insights and have implications for both fields. After an explanation of reddit, this article extends the work of Keilty and Leazer into a different erotic community: reddit’s /r/NSFW411. I argue that the categories used on ‘traditional’ pornographic ‘tube’ sites are potentially oppressive and limiting, and examine various aspects of an individually created naïve pornographic taxonomy with folksonomic elements. Finally, I demonstrate how the interplay between reddit, NSFW411, and this system identifies ‘gaps’ between erotic representation and users’ desires, thereby encouraging the creation of a new erotic communities. While unending proliferation and chaotic tagging is often identified as a weakness of folksonomies, I conclude that, in this case, it is a strength, as reddit’s ease of community-creation allows self-definition and community to marginalized sexual identities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".