A finding aid to the pornographic imaginary: implications of amateur classifications on/by reddit’s NSFW411
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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