MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112208129 · doi:10.47634/cjcp.v54i4.69046

Reasons Why Not: A Critical Review of the Television Series 13 Reasons Why

2020· review· en· W3112208129 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Emily Cruikshank, Phillip R. Sevigny

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyPublic healthPublic relationsHealth professionalsAdvertisingMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatryBusinessNursingHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its initial release as a Netflix television series in 2017, 13 Reasons Why has caught the attention of professionals and viewers alike because of its gripping storylines and controversial content. The show’s explicit nature has prompted mental health professionals to draw the public’s attention to the possibility of suicide contagion, especially among adolescent viewers. This paper is a comprehensive review of the show, a review of the current research on its epidemiological impact on the public, and a guide for mental health professionals and the general public on how to respond to the current information that we know about the show and its possible effects on viewers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207