MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891891705 · doi:10.7759/cureus.3271

The Role of Primary Care Physicians in Curtailing Harmful Social Media Trends

2018· editorial· en· W2891891705 on OpenAlexaff
Abhishek Gupta, Anurag Dhingra

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaMedicinePublic relationsHealth careEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media platforms, such as YouTube and Instagram, have become the latest medium for communication with a vast potential for influencing society. With their rise, a virtual market now exists where attention in the form of "likes," "views," and "followers" is traded for a monetary and psychological benefit. Amid this trade, physically risky behaviors have arisen to become a new attraction for attention, leading to numerous "trends" that encourage the same risk-taking behavior. Such trends, even those with a positive goal, have simultaneously led to injuries and fatalities, which highlights the necessity of a proactive approach to curtail the same. While media outlets and some non-governmental organizations usually highlight the risks of participating in these trends, the healthcare community has yet to have a collective and organized response to extreme social media participation. As such, a collaborative effort involving multiple tiers of the healthcare community is required to successfully prevent vulnerable populations from falling prey to the virtual attention-based economy of extreme social media participation.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0200.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207