MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365999205 · doi:10.1145/3579525

Supporters First: Understanding Online Social Support on Mental Health from a Supporter Perspective

2023· article· en· W4365999205 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

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsMicrosoft (Canada)
FundersMinistry of Education
KeywordsSocial supportSeekersPsychologyMental healthUploadPeer supportSupporterPerspective (graphical)Scale (ratio)Social psychologyApplied psychologyWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social support or peer support in mental health has successfully settled down in online spaces by reducing the potential risk of critical mental illness (e.g., suicidal thoughts) of support-seekers. While the prior work has mostly focused on support-seekers, particularly investigating their behavioral characteristics and the effects of online social supports to support-seekers, this paper seeks to understand online social support from supporters' perspectives, who have informational or emotional resources that may affect support-seekers either positively or negatively. To this end, we collect and analyze a large-scale of dataset consisting of the supporting comments and their target posts from 55 mental health communities in Reddit. We also develop a deep-learning-based model that scores informational and emotional support to the supporting comments. Based on the collected and scored dataset, we measure the characteristics of the supporters from the behavioral and content perspectives, which reveals that the supporters tend to give emotional support than informational support and the atmosphere of social support communities tend also to be emotional. We also understand the relations between the supporters and the support-seekers by giving a notion of "social supporting network'', whose nodes and edges are the sets of the users and the supporting comments. Our analysis on top users by out-degrees and in-degrees in social supporting network demonstrates that heavily-supportive users are more likely to give informational support with diverse content while the users who attract much support exhibit continuous support-seeking behaviors by uploading multiple posts with similar content. Lastly, we identified structural communities in social supporting network to explore whether and how the supporters and the support-seeking users are grouped. By conducting topic analysis on both the support-seeking posts and the supporting comments of individual communities, we revealed that small communities deal with a specific topic such as hair-pulling disorder. We believe that the methodologies, dataset, and findings can not only expose more research questions on online social supports in mental health, but also provide insight on improving social support in online platforms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.253 · 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