An evaluation of social media images portrayal of disability discourse: #amputeefitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread use and influential impact of social media has made it increasingly important to analyze the social norms and discourses that are being presented and promoted among social media users. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine whether the conversation and images associated with #amputeefitness on Instagram promoted the medical model discourse (i.e., a focus on aesthetic) or the social model of disability discourse (i.e., a focus on adapted physical activity). Using the Netlytic software, all publicly available Instagram media tagged with #amputeefitness were collected, and a text and image analysis were performed. The text analysis revealed that the conversation was positive or neutral and focused on four themes: community, motivation, aesthetic, and physical activity. The image analysis suggested an emphasis was placed on body structure (i.e., having an acceptable appearance) and physical activity. Although there was evidence of the medical model within the posts associated with #amputeefitness, there was a stronger indication of a shift towards the social model of disability discourse.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".