MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240585261 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14650008

Depression and the Devil of Hell's Kitchen: Exploring How Mental Illness Is Depicted in Daredevil Comic Books

2021· preprint· en· W4240585261 on OpenAlexaff
Zaeem Siddiqui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComics and Graphic Narratives
Canadian institutionsProfessional Engineers OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComicsMainstreamNarrativeMental illnessDepictionDepression (economics)Mental healthPsychologyAestheticsLiteraturePsychiatryArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This MRP explores how depression is depicted in Marvel’s Daredevil comic books through multimodal metaphors. It seeks to answer the following research questions: 1) How do the visual, textual, and spatial elements in Daredevil comic books work together to communicate depression? 2) What role does depression play within each Daredevil comic book narrative? A close reading was conducted to analyze how depression was communicated in two Daredevil comic books that explicitly discuss depression. This project found that characters discussed their mental illness experience through chaos and quest illness narratives, using a combination of visual and textual metaphors. Their accounts resembled medical representations of depression symptoms. The depiction of mental illness within the two Daredevil comics suggests that mainstream American superhero comics can both depict mental illnesses in a medically accurate manner and present them as authentic character experiences. This MRP provides a meaningful foundation for future research that explores how mainstream American superhero comics can play a larger role in graphic medicine and mental health communication. Keywords: comics, depression, mental illness, graphic medicine, illness narratives, superhero

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.171 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComics and Graphic NarrativesFrench-language works237,207