The Choking Game and YouTube: A Dangerous Combination
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
PURPOSE: To study postings of partial asphyxiation by adolescents on YouTube and to increase awareness of this dangerous activity as well as the value of YouTube as a research tool. METHODS: Videos were searched on YouTube using many terms for recreational partial asphyxiation. Data were gathered on the participants and on the occurrence of hypoxic seizure. RESULTS: Sixty-five videos of the asphyxiation game were identified. Most (90%) participants were male. A variety of techniques were used. Hypoxic seizures were witnessed in 55% of videos, but occurred in 88% of videos that employed the "sleeper hold" technique. The videos were collectively viewed 173550 times on YouTube. CONCLUSIONS: YouTube has enabled millions of young people to watch videos of the "choking game" and other dangerous activities. Seeing videos may normalize the behavior among adolescents. Increased awareness of this activity may prevent some youths from participating and potentially harming themselves or others.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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