Searching for <i>Thinspiration</i> : The Nature of Internet Searches for Pro-Eating Disorder Websites
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
Pro-eating disorder (Pro-ED) Websites are widespread and easily accessible. The risks associated with these Websites (e.g., reinforcing and encouraging eating disordered behaviors) have received interest from researchers, media, and mental health professionals. However, little is known about how these Websites are found, which may provide insight into prevention and intervention initiatives. Using Google AdWords Keywords in February 2011, a series of search terms (based on previous research) were entered to generate search-related data regarding actual pro-ED terms used in Google, including the corresponding search results, which were coded for degree of potential harm. Results indicated that Pro-ED search terms are sought out more than 13 million times annually, with pro ana receiving the most searches monthly. Overall, different terms are associated with varying numbers of monthly searches and regional interest. Search terms with references to thinspiration and thinspo are associated with the most harmful Website content. To provide those who seek pro-ED content with helpful, research-supported resources, it may be important to intervene before the point of access by targeting the search results corresponding with pro-ED search terms. Efforts may need to pay particular attention to terms such as thinspiration and thinspo.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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