Profiling Commenters on Mental Health–Related Online Forums: A Methodological Example Focusing on Eating Disorder–Related Commenters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the characteristics of commenters on mental health-related online forums is vital for the development of effective psychological interventions in these communities. The way in which commenters interact can enhance our understanding of their characteristics. OBJECTIVE: Using eating disorder-related (EDR) forums as an example, this study detailed a methodology that aimed to determine subtypes of mental health-related forums and profile their commenters based on the other forums to which they contributed. METHODS: The researchers identified all public EDR forums (with ≥500 contributing commenters between March 2017 and February 2018) on a large Web-based discussion platform (Reddit). A mixed-methods approach comprising network analysis with community detection, text mining, and manual review identified subtypes of EDR forums. For each subtype, another network analysis with community detection was conducted using the EDR forum commenter overlap between 50 forums on which the commenters also commented. The topics of forums in each detected community were then manually reviewed to identify the shared interests of each subtype of EDR forum commenters. RESULTS: Six subtypes of EDR forums were identified, to which 14,024 commenters had contributed. The results focus on 2 subtypes-proeating disorder and thinspiration-and communities of commenters within both subtypes. Within the proeating disorder subtype, 3 communities of commenters were detected that related to the body and eating, mental health, and women, appearance, and mixed topics. With regard to the thinspiration group, 78.17% (849/1086) of commenters had also commented on pornographic forums and 16.66% (181/1086) had contributed to proeating disorder forums. CONCLUSIONS: The article exemplifies a methodology that provides insight into subtypes of mental health-related forums and the characteristics of their commenters. The findings have implications for future research and Web-based psychological interventions. With the publicly available data and code provided, researchers can easily reproduce the analyses or utilize the methodology to investigate other mental health-related forums.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".