MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401573182 · doi:10.47863/gojv8413

Social media, body image and mental health: a bibliometric analysis

2024· article· en· W4401573182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Goulart, Allana Alexandre Cardoso, Joni Márcio de Farias, Ricardo Teixeira Quinaud

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthSocial mediaImage (mathematics)PsychologyData scienceSociologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychiatryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between social media, body image and mental health has been gaining attention. The present study aimed to map, through bibliometric parameters, the development of scientific productions that relate social media, body image and mental health. The research was carried out in the PubMed database and bibliometric indicators were analysed using the Bibliometrix statistical package, available in R language. We analysed 11.132 articles dated from 1982 to 2024, published in 1.799 journals and authored by 38.290 researchers. Over time, publications had an annual growth of 5.08% and a total of 22.92% of international collaborations. The Journal of Medical Internet Research stands out with the largest number of publications (n = 1,184) and the University of Toronto (n = 845) and researcher Helen Christensen (n = 141) with the largest number of published works. The analyses demonstrated interest in studying populations of different ages, with emphasis on research with women. Preponderant collaboration was identified between the United States, China, Canada and Italy, as well as between Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. It is concluded that research related to the topics investigated is gaining more space in publications, as well as international interest in its study, discussion and understanding.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0300.077
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207