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 OpenAlex
Stephen P. Lewis, Shaina A. Rosenrot, Michelle A. Messner

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
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