Analyzing Social Media Policies on Muscle-Building Drugs and Dietary Supplements
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of legal and illegal muscle-building drugs and dietary supplements has been linked to many adverse health and social outcomes. Research has shown that social media use is associated with the use of these drugs and dietary supplements; however, it remains unknown whether social media companies have specific policies related to the content and advertising of muscle-building drugs and dietary supplements on their platforms. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the content and advertising policies of eight popular social media companies related to muscle-building drugs and dietary supplements. METHODS: Content and advertising policies for YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, Twitch, and Reddit were analyzed in November 2022 to determine whether there were any provisions related to legal (e.g., whey protein) and illegal (e.g., anabolic-androgenic steroids) muscle-building drugs and dietary supplements. Policies were classified as either none, restricted, or prohibited. RESULTS: All eight social media platforms had explicit policies prohibiting user-generated content and advertising of illicit drugs and substances (e.g., anabolic-androgenic steroids). User-generated content and advertising policies related to legal muscle-building dietary supplements across the platforms varied; however, none of the eight social media companies had a specific policy regarding user content. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the need for stronger social media content and advertising policies related to legal muscle-building dietary supplements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it