MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106638880 · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7184

CARTOONS KILL: casualties in animated recreational theater in an objective observational new study of kids' introduction to loss of life

2014· article· en· W2106638880 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian Colman, Mila Kingsbury, M. Weeks, Anushka Ataullahjan, Marc‐André Bélair, Jennifer Dykxhoorn, Katie Hynes, Alex Loro, Miriam S Martin, Kiyuri Naicker, Nancy J. Pollock, Corneliu Rusu, James B. Kirkbride

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersRoyal SocietyCanada Research ChairsWellcome Trust
KeywordsHazard ratioEntertainmentConfidence intervalObservational studyMedicineArtVisual artsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of on-screen death of important characters in children's animated films versus dramatic films for adults. DESIGN: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with Cox regression comparing time to first on-screen death. SETTING: Authors' television screens, with and without popcorn. PARTICIPANTS: Important characters in 45 top grossing children's animated films and a comparison group of 90 top grossing dramatic films for adults. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to first on-screen death. RESULTS: Important characters in children's animated films were at an increased risk of death compared with characters in dramatic films for adults (hazard ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 4.90). Risk of on-screen murder of important characters was higher in children's animated films than in comparison films (2.78, 1.02 to 7.58). CONCLUSIONS: Rather than being the innocuous form of entertainment they are assumed to be, children's animated films are rife with on-screen death and murder.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207