MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035449160 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.15

“The Kindness of Strangers:” The Influence of Social Media on the Construction of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another

2020· article· en· W3035449160 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rosanna Langer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKindnessFactitious disorderSocial mediaPsychologyDocumentationNeglectLaw enforcementInternet privacyPublic relationsCriminologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (FDIA), termed a psychiatric “Factitious disorder by proxy”, compels individuals to solicit unnecessary medical interventions or commit medical abuses on another, almost always a child in their care. A recent phenomenon is that of individuals with FDIA using social media such as blogs and online support groups to perpetuate such abuse, while garnering sympathy from others who access these sites. Through an examination of several recent high profile FDIA by Internet cases and using the concept of “neo-tribes’ to identify the virtual communities of interest that form around these cases, new dimensions of FDIA appear. Fabrication of medical and social histories is facilitated and consolidated in the virtual sphere and readily enhanced through imagery and careful documentation. Betrayed communities experience exploitation and fraud. However, child neglect and child endangerment remain of concern, and identifying and investigating such claims across physical jurisdictions remain significant challenges for law enforcement.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207