MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381950363 · doi:10.51357/jdll.v3i1.218

Deepfakes and Harm to Women

2023· article· en· W4381950363 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Digital Life and Learning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmAutonomyReputationInternet privacyCriminologyOnline communityPublic relationsPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologySocial scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As deepfake technologies become more sophisticated and accessible to the broader online community, their use puts women participating in digital spaces at increased risk of experiencing violence online and abuse. In a ‘post-truth’ era, the ability to discern what is real and what is fake allows malevolent actors to manipulate public opinion or ruin the social reputation of individuals to wider audiences. While the scholarly research on the topic is sparse, this study explored the harm women have experienced in technology and deepfakes. Results of the study suggest that deepfakes are a relatively new method to deploy gender-based violence and erode women’s autonomy in their on-and-offline world. This study highlights the unique harms for women that are felt on both an individual and systemic level and the necessity for further inquiry into online harm through deepfakes and victims’ experiences.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.272 · 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