Communicating mental health online: a comparative multimodal analysis of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and Children’s Mental Health Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online mental health communication is a niche area of study in the professional communication field that has been studied previously by several researchers who have applied a social semiotics and critical discourse analysis approach. Since mental health has become a critical public health issue worldwide, this major research paper (MRP) presents a comparative analysis of two mental health organizations’ websites, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the Children’s Mental Health Ontario. This paper explores how both organizations communicate mental health online. To address the proposed questions of this research study, a multimodal analysis of text and images is conducted for each organization’s website. The data collected from this study identifies key themes that uncover how mental health is communicated on both organization’s websites. A visual social semiotic analysis is applied to contribute to the understanding of the shifting mental health model and the positive psychology approach to mental health. Furthermore, this research study combines linguistic tools to study the meanings of text and images at a micro-semiotic level in order to analyze the social power used within the texts of both websites.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".