Desperate or desirable? Perceptions of individuals seeking dates online and offline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Past research suggests that people who use the Internet to pursue romantic relationships have been stereotyped negatively—as unattractive, desperate, or creepy. It is possible, however, that as finding dates online has grown in popularity, individuals who have themselves used online methods to meet a partner are less likely to apply these negative stereotypes than non‐users. In addition, as options for dating online have proliferated, it is not clear that users of all online formats are viewed negatively, or how perceptions of users of online methods might differ from perceptions of daters using various offline methods. This study examined perceptions of those who use various online (algorithm‐based, profile‐browsing, or social media) and offline (meeting through family/friends, luck, groups, work, or going out) methods to meet a partner. Participants ( N = 214), who were themselves users or non‐users of online methods of meeting partners, were recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk system to complete online questionnaires. Results indicated that participants viewed individuals who used online methods more negatively than those using offline methods; however, individuals who had themselves used online methods viewed other online users more positively than did non‐users.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".