MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2496929103 · doi:10.1177/1461444816660783

The self—harmed, visualized, and reblogged: Remaking of self-injury narratives on Tumblr

2016· article· en· W2496929103 on OpenAlexaff
Yukari Seko, Stephen P. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Media & Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceNarrativeSocial mediaContext (archaeology)IconographyFace (sociological concept)Content (measure theory)SociologyAestheticsMedia studiesPsychologyLiteratureVisual artsComputer scienceArtHistoryCognitive psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Images featuring self-injury (SI) have been proliferating on social media. This article reports the findings of a visual narrative analysis of 294 photo-based posts on Tumblr, exploring how SI is narrated through the interplay between image content, photographic composition, associated texts and tags, and reblogging. Findings reveal a shift in the iconography of SI from direct depictions of self-injured bodies to re-appropriations of popular media content that figuratively represent emotional struggles. Images of self-inflicted wounds received 10 times less reblogs than images without wounds, and media memes conveying hopeless moods were the most widely distributed. These memes represent SI as a form of life struggle virtually anyone can face while complicating conventional readings of SI as an individual pathologic experience. We discuss these findings in the context of an emergent online curation culture and how Tumblr’s unique affordances may both offer and limit possibilities for narrating SI.

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations66
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Media & SocietySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207