MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990460551 · doi:10.1080/13811118.2012.695274

Seeking Validation in Unlikely Places: The Nature of Online Questions About Non-Suicidal Self-Injury

2012· article· en· W1990460551 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen P. Lewis, Shaina A. Rosenrot, Michelle A. Messner

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Suicide Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)PsychologySuicide preventionThe InternetPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthInternet privacyMedicineApplied psychologyMedical emergencyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research points to the salience of the Internet as a means to seek information about non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) but no research has explored what is asked about NSSI online. The current study examined the nature of NSSI questions asked on Yahoo! Answers. One hundred and eight questions were analyzed using a content analysis. The most frequently asked questions pertained to seeking validation for NSSI experiences (30.56%); however, the responses provided were sometimes quite invalidating. Other common questions included those related to general NSSI information (17.59%), scar concealment (11.11%), and NSSI-related media (11.11%). Efforts are needed to provide NSSI resources and support online but websites may need to be monitored to safeguard against unhelpful responses.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Suicide ResearchSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207