MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312061519 · doi:10.1177/00302228221146345

Entertainment-Education: What Are <i>Grey’s Anatomy</i> and <i>Saving Hope</i> Teaching Us About Death?

2022· article· en· W4312061519 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Chartrand, Janelle Lazaro

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntertainmentGriefThematic analysisContent analysisPsychologySpace (punctuation)Content (measure theory)SociologyVisual artsLinguisticsPsychiatryArtSocial scienceQualitative researchPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we examine primetime television as a source of entertainment-education on death. Using directed (deductive) and conventional (inductive) approaches to content analysis, we describe how death and dying are being depicted on two primetime medical television series, Grey's Anatomy and Saving Hope. We then discuss what kinds of information viewers may be taking from these series. Our deductive content analysis suggests that much of the messages obtained are fairly representative of what occurs in real hospital settings, with the exception of emotional display. From the inductive analysis, we identified four thematic categories: 'the person dies, but life goes on', 'the tragic death', 'the purposeful death', and 'the well-timed death'. Regardless of category, no rituals are conducted at the moment of death and little space is made for grieving on primetime medical television shows. While death is often present, displays of grief are avoided.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207