MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Social Psychological Analysis of Online Gender Discourse and Gender Relations

2025· article· en· W4412495344 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySociologySocial psychologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid expansion of social media platforms, online gender discourse has become increasingly prominent in shaping contemporary gender relations, particularly in the Chinese digital context, where unique political and commercial constraints create distinctive patterns of feminist expression. This paper, through a method of literature review and case study analysis, explores how social psychological mechanisms interact with technological infrastructures to shape gender discourse production and circulation on Chinese social media platforms. The study examines two cases in particular: the Gender Watch Women's Voice experience, which serves to demonstrate counter-discourse resistance strategies, and the Mimeng phenomenon, which serves to illustrate neoliberal feminist commercialization. The conclusion of the paper suggests that digital gender discourse functions through "algorithmic-psychological feedback loops," where platform architectures amplify social psychological processes, including group polarization, social identity formation, and collective efficacy building. The research indicates that identical technological features can result in divergent outcomes across different political and commercial contexts. Paradoxically, platform censorship has been observed to strengthen feminist counter-discourses, while commercial platforms co-opt feminist language to reinforce patriarchal structures.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.401 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public MediaSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207