MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533741660 · doi:10.1177/0743558416673717

Teen Depression Groups on Facebook: A Content Analysis

2016· article· en· W2533741660 on OpenAlexaff
Bethany Lerman, Stephen P. Lewis, Margaret N. Lumley, Greg J. Grogan, Chloe C. Hudson, E. F. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyDepression (economics)Intervention (counseling)Social mediaClinical psychologyContent analysisPsychiatryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most frequently diagnosed disorders in early adolescence and can lead to a multitude of negative life outcomes, highlighting the need for early and effective intervention to mitigate depressive symptoms. Recognizing the preference of youth to seek informal sources of help for mental health issues, which may include the Internet, the social networking site Facebook was investigated as a potential source of support and help for youth suffering depressive symptoms or disorder. This study examined the content of online Facebook support groups targeting adolescents with depression. A total of 508 posts from six Facebook groups were analyzed. The majority of post content on these Facebook groups consisted of self-disclosure (32.48%), feedback between posters (24.80%), and offers and recommendations of help (24.61%). Posters seem to utilize adolescent Facebook depression groups mainly to connect with those who might share a similar experience and to share information about mental health resources. Future studies should investigate the potential to use the information exchange that occurs in these groups to promote traffic to online and offline evidence-based mental health resources.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent ResearchSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207