MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135929928 · doi:10.2196/20179

Displayed Depression Symptoms on Facebook at Two Time Points: Content Analysis

2021· article· en· W3135929928 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Megan A. Moreno, Quintin Gaus, Megan Wilt, Alina Arseniev‐Koehler, Adrienne Ton, Molly Adrian, Ann VanderStoep

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)PsychologyCohortClinical psychologyYoung adultMental healthPsychiatryMedicineDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Depression is a prevalent and problematic mental disorder that often has an onset in adolescence. Previous studies have illustrated that depression disclosures on social media are common and may be linked to an individual's experiences of depression. However, most studies have examined depression displays on social media at a single time point. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate displayed depression symptoms on Facebook at 2 developmental time points based on symptom type and gender. METHODS: Participants were recruited from an ongoing longitudinal cohort study. The content analysis of text-based Facebook data over 1 year was conducted at 2 time points: time 1 (adolescence; age 17-18 years) and time 2 (young adulthood; ages 20-22 years). Diagnostic criteria for depression were applied to each post to identify the displayed depression symptoms. Data were extracted verbatim. The analysis included nonparametric tests for comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 78 participants' Facebook profiles were examined, of which 40 (51%) were male. At time 1, 62% (48/78) of the adolescents had a Facebook profile, and 54% (26/78) displayed depression symptom references with an average of 9.4 (SD 3.1) references and 3.3 (SD 2.3) symptom types. Of the 78 participants, 15 (19%) females and 12 (15%) males displayed depression symptom references; these prevalence estimates were not significantly different by gender (P=.59). At time 2, 35 young adults displayed symptoms of depression with an average of 4.6 (SD 2.3) references and 2.4 (SD 1.3) symptom types. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms of depression displayed between males (n=19) and females (n=16; P=.63). CONCLUSIONS: This content analysis study within an ongoing cohort study illustrates the differences in depression displays on Facebook by developmental stage and symptom. This study contributes to a growing body of literature by showing that using social media to observe and understand depression during the emerging adult developmental period may be a valuable approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.019

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.364 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207