MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498672803 · doi:10.3390/fi8030037

Instagram and WhatsApp in Health and Healthcare: An Overview

2016· article· en· W2498672803 on OpenAlexaff
Maged N. Kamel Boulos, Dean Giustini, Steve Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Internet · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaComputer scienceHealth careInternet privacyWorld Wide WebData sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instagram and WhatsApp are two social media and networking services introduced in 2010. They are currently subsidiaries of Facebook, Inc., California, USA. Using evidence from the published literature and case reports indexed in PubMed and other sources, we present an overview of the various applications of Instagram and WhatsApp in health and healthcare. We also briefly describe the main issues surrounding the uses of these two apps in health and medicine.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations302
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture InternetSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207