Navigating Your Social Media Presence: Opportunities and Challenges
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
Social media use is on the rise. With a 10-fold increase in use over the last decade, it is estimated that over 69% of adults now use social media on a regular basis. Social media has been identified as a key resource for health professionals, including psychologists, to learn new knowledge, interact with others, keep up-to-date on the latest research, and get tips on how to integrate evidence-based information into their clinical practice. The objectives of this article are to (a) summarize professional opportunities in the area of social media and outline the various ways that pediatric psychologists can use social media in their research, practice, and advocacy; and (b) provide practical suggestions for pediatric psychologists on creating, sharing and interacting over social media. Recommendations for participating in activities such as live tweeting, video streaming, and social media evaluation are discussed. Common barriers, potential pitfalls, and ethical issues associated with use of social media by pediatric psychologists are also addressed. Implications for Impact Statement This article offers an overview of social media applications for pediatric psychologists engaged in research and clinical practice. Suggestions for using social media, including ethical and practical considerations, are also reviewed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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