MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163731380 · doi:10.18192/cjms-rcem.v17i1.5878

Pratiques et usages de Tinder, une étude exploratoire

2021· article· fr· W3163731380 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maude Lecompte

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Media Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’apparition récente des applications de rencontre par géolocalisation, notamment Tinder, est venue modifier les façons de faire des rencontres. Les études actuelles sont peu nombreuses et s’intéressent principalement aux moins de 25 ans. La présente étude vise à documenter les pratiques ainsi que les usages de l’application. Les résultats démontrent que les pratiques sur l’application sont diversifiées, que la séquence d’interactions est préétablie, que les critères de rejet sont nombreux et détaillés, que les qualités de l’application sont à double tranchant et que l’authenticité est un concept polysémique pour les utilisateurs. Les propos recueillis font également ressortir des usages d’intégration, de protection et de performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.365
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.006 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Media StudiesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207