Saudi Viewers Watching Foreign Medical Dramas: A Uses and Gratification Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical dramas have become a widely consumed media genre, providing audiences with health information and entertainment. Based on the uses and gratifications theory, this study analyzed the factors motivating Saudi medical students to watch foreign medical dramas and explored how these motivations were related to their engagement (selectivity, attentiveness, and involvement) and use of the health knowledge acquired. Data were collected from 2,004 Saudi undergraduate and graduate students (age: 19 to 26 years) enrolled in both pre-clinical and clinical stages of their medical education at several Saudi universities. Participants reported regular viewing of foreign medical dramas. The sample included students from diverse academic stages to ensure representation across both early and advanced levels of medical training. The findings indicated that students primarily watched medical dramas for entertainment and relaxation rather than for health-related insights. However, the desire for health-related knowledge was the only motivation directly linked to the use of information from these dramas. Entertainment motivations had an indirect positive impact on health information use through active engagement, while attentiveness to storylines negatively influenced information utilization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".