MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615627274 · doi:10.1177/2056305117704407

#SocialMedia: Exploring the Relationship of Social Networking Sites on Body Image, Self-Esteem, and Eating Disorders

2017· article· en· W2615627274 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Santarossa, Sarah J. Woodruff

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Media + Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEating disordersClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate whether problematic social networking site (SNS) use (i.e., degree of dependent relationship with SNSs), total SNS time/day, total SNS friends, and specific SNS activities were related to body image (BI), self-esteem (SE), and eating disorder (ED) symptoms/concerns. A sample of young adults ( N = 147) completed an online survey which measured SNS usage, problematic SNS use, BI, SE, and ED symptom/concerns. The findings revealed that females and males spent 4.1 ± 3.9 and 2.9 ± 2.8 hr on SNS, respectively, with the majority of time spent lurking (i.e., looking at another users’ profile but not actually communicating with them). Furthermore, problematic SNS use was found to be related to BI, SE, and ED symptoms/concerns. Moreover, SNS activities, such as lurking and posting comments on others’ profiles, were found to be related to BI, whereas SNS total time was found to be related to ED symptoms/concerns. Overall, this study demonstrates the possible correlational influence of SNSs on BI, SE, and ED symptoms/concerns.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations143
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Media + SocietySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207