Cultivating the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of HCI research has sought to understand how online networks are utilized in the adoption and maintenance of disordered activities and behaviors associated with mental illness, including eating habits. However, individual-level influences over discrete online eating disorder (ED) communities are not yet well understood. This study reports results from a comprehensive network and content analysis (combining computational topic modeling and qualitative thematic analysis) of over 32,000 public tweets collected using popular ED-related hashtags during May 2020. Our findings indicate that this ED network in Twitter consists of multiple smaller ED communities where a majority of the nodes are exposed to unhealthy ED contents through retweeting certain influential central nodes. The emergence of novel linguistic indicators and trends (e.g., "#meanspo") also demonstrates the evolving nature of the ED network. This paper contextualizes ED influence in online communities through node-level participation and engagement, as well as relates emerging ED contents with established online behaviors, such as self-harassment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".