Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The purposes of this study is to analyze domestic and foreign research trends, achievements, and limitations on non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) in the online space, and to seek the therapeutic intervention methods and the direction of future NSSI research. Methods First, a search was conducted with the keywords ‘non-suicide self-injury’ in the academic portal sites RISS, ScienceOn, ScienceDirect, and Google SCHOLAR. Secondary search was conducted within the results with the keywords ‘internet’, ‘online’, and ‘social media’. Based on the search results, 22 papers were selected through a review process to exclude researcher bias, excluding papers that did not meet the purpose of the study. Papers classified in terms of research trends by country, characteristics of research subjects, and research methodologies, and the research results were classified into protective factors, risk factors, and treatment and prevention intervention methods by referring to the analysis framework of previous studies. Results Research on non-suicide self-harm in the online space was the most conducted in Canada, and the subject of the study was NSSI-related contents. For the methods, there were 7 quantitative studies and 15 qualitative studies. As for the research topic, NSSI related activities in online space were the most common. Risk factors in online NSSI-related studies were summarized as validation, acquisition of information related to non-suicidal self-injury, satisfaction of interest, negative effects of online communication, effects of homogeneous groups, and trigger functions. And the protective factors were relief of non-suicidal self-injury impulses, cessation of behavior, use as a tool for recovery, acquisition of emotional support, promotion of hope for recovery, window for requesting help, and acquisition of information for helping others. As for the treatment and prevention intervention, the necessity of understanding and utilizing the specificity of the online space in the counseling and prevention education scene and efforts at the online platform were mentioned. Conclusions Based on the research results, therapeutic intervention and prevention methods for NSSI activities in online space were proposed, and direction for follow-up studies were suggested.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".