MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285351226 · doi:10.2196/34044

Examining Hashtag Use of #blackboyjoy and #theblackmancan and Related Content on Instagram: Descriptive Content Analysis

2022· article· en· W4285351226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kofoworola D. A. Williams, Sharyn A. Dougherty, Emily G. Lattie, Jeanine P. D. Guidry, Kellie E. Carlyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsContent analysisSocial mediaDescriptive statisticsPsychologyPsychological interventionExploratory analysisApplied psychologyMental healthComputer scienceSociologyWorld Wide WebData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social media is widely accessible and increasingly utilized. Social media users develop hashtags and visual, text-based imagery to challenge misrepresentations, garner social support, and discuss a variety of mental health issues. Understanding how Black men are represented on social media and are using social media may be an avenue for promoting their engagement with and uptake of digital mental health interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a content analysis of posts containing visual and text-based components related to representations of Black men's race, gender, and behaviors. METHODS: An exploratory, descriptive content analysis was conducted for 500 Instagram posts to examine characteristics, content, and public engagement of posts containing the hashtags #theblackmancan and #blackboyjoy. Posts were selected randomly and extracted from Instagram using a social network mining tool during Fall 2018 and Spring 2019. A codebook was developed, and all posts were analyzed by 2 independent coders. Analyses included frequency counts and descriptive analysis to determine content and characteristics of posts. Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were conducted to assess engagement associated with posts via likes, comments, and video views. RESULTS: Of the 500 posts extracted, most were image based (368/500, 73.6%), 272/500 (54.4%) were posted by an individual and 135/500 (27.0%) by a community organization, 269/500 (53.8%) were posted by individuals from Black populations, and 177/500 (35.4%) posts contained images of only males. Posts depicted images of Black men as fathers (100/500, 20.0%), Black men being celebrated (101/500, 20.2%), and Black men expressing joy (217/500, 43.4%). Posts (127/500, 25.4%) also depicted Black men in relation to gender atypical behavior, such as caring for children or styling their children's hair. Variables related to education and restrictive affection did not show up often in posts. Engagement via likes (median 1671, P<.001), comments (P<.001), and views (P<.001) for posts containing #theblackmancan was significantly higher compared with posts containing #blackboyjoy (median 140). Posts containing elements of celebrating Black men (P=.02) and gender atypical behavior (P<.001) also had significantly higher engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to look at hashtag use of #blackboyjoy and #theblackmancan. Posts containing #blackboyjoy and #theblackmancan promoted positive user-generated visual and text-based content on Instagram and promoted positive interactions among Black and diverse communities. With the popularity of social media and hashtag use increasing, researchers and future interventional research should investigate the potential for such imagery to serve as culturally relevant design components for digital mental health prevention efforts geared towards Black men and the communities they exist and engage with.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.637
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207