MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W131866647 · doi:10.3912/ojin.vol17no03man04

Health Tweets: An Exploration of Health Promotion on Twitter

2012· article· en· W131866647 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorie Donelle, Richard Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueOJIN The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaMicrobloggingConceptualizationHealth promotionHealth communicationAgency (philosophy)Public relationsPublic healthHealth educationDisseminationContent analysisQualitative researchPsychologySociologyInternet privacyAdvertisingPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineComputer scienceSocial scienceBusinessNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twitter® is a popular microblogging site that allows users to disseminate information in 140 characters of text or less. A review of literature indicated that, to date, there has been little inquiry into the health based discussions conceptualized and enacted within and among Twitter users. Methods for this qualitative study included a directed content analysis, guided by the Public Health Agency of Canada's Determinant of Health (DOH) framework was completed to explore health based discussions on Twitter. A 24-hour cross-section of tweets (N=2400) containing the word or hashtag 'health' were collected for analysis. Findings revealed predominant themes of health services, personal health practices, and education. Many of the tweeted messages reflected existing political and social issues publicized within the global mass media. This study also considered the evolving dynamic behind the conceptualization of health and how it is co-constructed through news media, advertising, and social network technologies. Discussion of the emerging themes and implications for practice are presented.

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)0.007
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations70
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOJIN The Online Journal of Issues in NursingSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207