MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322719929 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2185350

Understanding Mental Health Organizations’ Instagram Through Visuals: A Content Analysis

2023· article· en· W4322719929 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Communication · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthFraming (construction)Content analysisPsychologyStigma (botany)Visual literacyPopulationMental health literacyMental imageSocial mediaMedia literacyApplied psychologyMedicineComputer scienceSociologyMental illnessPsychiatryPedagogyEnvironmental healthWorld Wide WebCognitionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzed the content, visual features, and audience engagement data of Instagram posts from two mental health organizations over one year (N = 725). For content features, mental health literacy and communicative strategies were examined. Posts that promoted knowledge of mental disorders and treatments, used information and community strategy were more likely to receive higher audience engagement. Visual features of demographic segments, visual composition, and visual framing topics were analyzed. Images that covered an unspecific population, used illustrated images, and focused on anti-stigma topical frames obtained more engagement. Theoretical contributions and practical applications regarding visual message design and management on social media to promote mental health are also offered.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.650
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.115 · 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