MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320913037 · doi:10.3138/cjhs.2022-0032

<i>“I wouldn’t say that I’m overly campy”</i>: The socio-cultural subjugation of femininity within gay socio-sexual applications

2023· article· en· W4320913037 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adam Davies, Steven Winkelman, David Collict

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemininityPsychologyGender studiesQueerMasculinitySexual orientationHuman sexualitySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of femmephobic attitudes amongst gay, bisexual, and queer (GBQ) men is well-reported, yet under-discussed employing femme theory. Femmephobia, or the socio-cultural regulation of femininity, is common within GBQ online socio-sexual applications, yet more research is needed to analyze the different ways femmephobia takes place within GBQ socio-sexual applications predominately used by GBQ men. This study analyzes qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 79 participants who described their experiences using socio-sexual applications and interacting with online outreach and health information workers. Participants described the different ways femmephobia and the regulation of femininity manifests within GBQ socio-sexual applications and how such forms of regulation relate to self-presentation and the privileging of masculinity within GBQ socio-sexual applications. Participants further described how femmephobia and the denigration of femininity intersected with anti-Asian racism online.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Human SexualitySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207