MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2974907749 · doi:10.18438/eblip29593

Emotions Expressed in Online Discussion Forums are Associated with Information Poverty and Level of Information Need

2019· article· en· W2974907749 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barbara M. Wildemuth

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueChild Development and Digital Technology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFeelingSituational ethicsRelevance (law)PsychologyOnline discussionDeceptionSecrecySocial psychologyInternet privacyApplied psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Review of:
 Ruthven, I., Buchanan, S., & Jardine, C. (2018). Isolated, overwhelmed, and worried: Young first-time mothers asking for information and support online. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 69(9), 1073-1083. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24037
 Abstract
 Objective – To understand the emotions associated with online forum requests for information from young first-time mothers.
 Design – Naturalistic study of existing online forum postings.
 Setting – Two UK-based online discussion forums intended for use by young mothers.
 Subjects – Two hundred thirty-seven young (aged 14 to 21) first-time mothers, who posted 279 messages in the two forums.
 Methods – The 279 messages were categorized in terms of 1) the type of emotion expressed, using an inductively developed coding scheme that included interaction emotions, preoccupation emotions, and response emotions; 2) four dimensions of information poverty: secrecy, deception, risk, and situational relevance; and 3) whether the information request expressed a conscious or a formalized information need. In addition to analyzing the frequency with which particular emotions occurred, co-occurrences of emotions with information poverty dimensions and emotions with level of information need were analyzed.
 Main Results – As expected, most of the forum posts included expressions of emotions. Interaction emotions relate to the mother’s interactions (or lack of them) with other people and were expressed in 75 of the posts; the most frequently expressed interaction emotions were feelings of isolation and being judged. Preoccupation emotions are concerned with states of mental absorption or uncertainty and were expressed in 141 of the posts; the most frequently expressed preoccupation emotions were worry, a feeling of being overwhelmed, and self-doubt. Response emotions include reactions to someone else or a situation and were expressed in 45 of the posts; the most frequently expressed response emotion was anger, frustration, or venting (which were handled as one unit by the authors).
 Dimensions of information poverty were found in 57 of the 279 posts in the sample. Situational relevance (i.e., the desire for support or information from someone that is in a very similar situation) accounted for over half of the instances of information poverty. The risks associated with young motherhood were expressed in over a quarter of the instances of information poverty.
 Emotions were more likely to be expressed when the post included evidence of information poverty. When posts of conscious and formalized needs were compared, emotions were more likely to be expressed in posts of conscious needs (i.e., those which had not yet been formalized).
 Conclusion – Almost all of the 279 posts in the sample included strong emotional content, mostly negative emotions such as worry, isolation, and frustration. These emotions were associated with expressions of information poverty; in particular, feelings of isolation were closely associated with information poverty. In addition, posters at an early stage of problem recognition, expressing a conscious but not yet formalized information need, were more likely to experience these negative emotions. These findings have strong implications for moderators of online forums hoping to provide support to young first-time mothers.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,499
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,714

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,296
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetChild Development and Digital TechnologyTravaux en français237 207