MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976291636 · doi:10.1177/1359105319877231

Binge-watching: Self-care or self-harm? Understanding the health subjectivities of binge-watchers

2019· article· en· W2976291636 on OpenAlexaff
Jade Crimson Rose Da Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeoliberalism (international relations)Binge drinkingIdeologyRhetoricHarmSociologyHarm reductionGender studiesPublic healthSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePoison controlSuicide preventionMedicineEnvironmental healthPoliticsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neoliberalism has given rise to an ideology of healthism, wherein recreational appetitive activities such as binge-watching are stigmatized. Despite this, however, binge-watching remains a widely performed television viewing practice worldwide. Little research has examined the effects that this tension has on binge-watchers' perceptions and interpretations about their health. Using a discourse analysis of 15 in-depth interviews, this article examines how the health subjectivities of binge-watchers are constituted through a complex prism of healthist discourse rooted in neoliberal rhetoric. Findings suggest that most respondents develop health subjectivities that both challenge and reinforce neoliberal ideology.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207