Exploring women's responses to online media coverage of weight loss surgery
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
The purpose of this study was to understand the reactions of women to online news articles about weight loss surgery and related reader comments. Focus groups were conducted; open-ended questions were asked to elicit responses to existing online news media content related to weight loss surgery. The participants described the online articles as predominantly supportive of weight loss surgery and in response they expressed a desire to see more critical content, including different and competing perspectives. Participants felt the online comments represented extreme perspectives and were predominately negative. These were therefore not viewed as helpful or informative. Nevertheless, readers viewed comments as a form of entertainment. Because of the aggressive and anonymous nature of reader comments in response to online news stories, the participants did not feel comfortable leaving comments themselves on the news sites. Findings highlight the importance of gathering readers' perspectives in response to interactive media content and, in particular, health information.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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