MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400216640 · doi:10.1080/02673843.2024.2371396

Celebrity worship: friend or foe of mental health? Qualitative evidence from Ghanaian adolescents

2024· article· en· W4400216640 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Kwame Morgan, Daniel Katey, Bernice Wadei, David Forkuor, Charles Peprah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Adolescence and Youth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorshipMental healthPsychologySocial psychologyQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistSociologySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era where celebrity influence shapes the lives of young people worldwide, understanding its impact on adolescents has never been more critical. This study explores the growing phenomenon of celebrity worship among Ghanaian adolescents by employing an exploratory research design. Primary data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 12 adolescents who were conveniently sampled. Interpretative phenomenological analysis approach was adopted to uncover recurring patterns and themes in the data. Our findings show dual effects of celebrity worship on the mental health of the adolescents. These encompass positive aspects such as inspiration and motivation, and negative aspects like anxiety and low self-esteem. We also established that adolescents engage in celebrity worship for varied reasons, including a desire for social connection and a need for escapism. Thus, our study highlights the dynamic effects of celebrity worship on the mental health of adolescents. Further quantitative studies are recommended for a comprehensive understanding of this relationship.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Adolescence and YouthSame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207