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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the emergence of Tinder in 2013, discussion of the viability of online dating centered on the failure of online dating platforms to attract heterosexual women. Before the era of the screen, however, gay men, facing down laws and social norms which rendered their desires publicly unspeakable, had been meeting through other virtual means, phone chat lines and online chat rooms, for decades. The same year that Tinder debuted, Grindr, the first dating app for gay men, had already amassed over four million users worldwide, a quarter of whom used the app on a daily basis. Two surveys, conducted in 2014 and 2015, found that 70% of gay men had dated someone they met online. This collection of stories, set primarily in Richmond, Virginia, asks what these men see reflected when they place themselves before the screen? Perhaps, like the protagonists of “Reunion” or “DeirdreMomLove1947,” they see a force of reconciliation. Or perhaps, as in “The Weirding Path” or “Adornments,” they are lured in by the potential the app holds for deceit, for retribution. At its core, this collection asks readers to consider a philosophical question: when our romantic and sexual identities are mediated by a platform where we can say anything, or be anyone—who do we become?
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it