“They’re All Honky Bros…”: Exploring Canadian Women of Color’s Experiences Using Geosocial Networking Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital-sexual racism is mediated though geosocial networking applications (GSNAs), also known as dating/hookup apps. Digital-sexual racism seeks to explain how access to multiple profiles, emphasis on self-presentation, and increased anonymity found on GSNAs results in racism and discrimination for people of color. Scholars have started to explore digital-sexual racism on GSNAs; however, Canadian women of color (WOC) have not been included in this exploration to date. Informed by a feminist lens, we conducted focus groups with 12 WOC from Ontario, Canada, to explore how the intersection of their race/ethnicity, gender, and geographic location influenced their experience and engagement with GSNAs. We summarized our results as follows: (1) forms of digital-sexual racism, (2) influence of geography, and (3) sexism from men of color and immigrant men. We argue that the intersection of race, gender, and geographic location affords a unique experience between WOC/non-WOC and within the broad WOC category as well.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".