Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hailed as an indispensable tool for 21st-century communication, online media platforms have played major roles in the proliferation of knowledge worldwide. However, this new outlet of opportunity is not without its drawbacks to consider. With social media continuing to introduce new priorities to communicators, information becomes vulnerable to the fast click approaches to writing, sacrificing the quality of written work to achieve a wider digital reach. At the same time, healthcare professionals themselves become the subjects of scrutiny and distrust, competing with digital actors to share information with the public. Consequently, the negative side of social media makes itself evident amidst the recent global pandemic, illustrating the power that rumours may have on influencing overall health and safety. With this as the case, necessary conversations pertaining to the dangerous nature of social media must be held to both maximize awareness and allow for the avoidance of misinformation.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| 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".