Virtual mourning and memory construction on Facebook: Here are the terms of use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article investigates the online information practices of persons grieving and mourning the death of another via Facebook through an examination of how, or if, these practices and Facebook's terms of use policies have implications for those in mourning and/or the memory of the deceased. To explore these questions the researchers contrasted traditional publicly recorded asynchronous modes of grieving (i.e. obituaries) with Facebook's asynchronous features (i.e. pages, photos, messages, profiles, comments etc.) Additionally, by applying observational techniques to Facebook memorial pages and Facebook profile pages, conducting a survey, and following‐up on survey responses with interviews, the researchers examined the benefits and issues of online information sharing via Facebook when coping with loss. It was found that immediacy of publishing comments, messages, wall posts, photos, etc. provided Facebook mourners with a quick outlet for emotion and a means of timely group support via responding comments; however, these actions directly affect the deceased's online curation of self, memory, as well as created an environment of competition amongst the mourning. The aforementioned benefits and complications of using Facebook during bereavement are shaped by the policy outlined by Facebook, as Facebook's present policy leaves the deceased's surviving family and/or friends to change the status of the profile to be memorialized, close the profile account, or remove a memorial page; thus, leaving one's reputation beyond the grave in the hands of others.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".