Bibliographic record
Abstract
Posts with health content are shared on social networking sites by government agencies, fan clubs or social marketers on a daily basis.These posts play an important role in informing people and linking them on social networks in order to share their ideas, change their behavior, or contribute to their diseases.Despite the prominence of the role of social networks in social marketing, so far this field has not been formally analyzed in the literature.Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide a formal analysis of posts with health content and to propose a framework for categorizing them based on their message content.With this in mind, the study performed qualitative content analysis involving three interrelated coding procedures.First, the study reviewed earlier works in the social marketing literature and more recent analysis of the function of social networks to improve health to identify initial coding categories (deductive coding).Second, the study drew together systematic inferences from a purposive sample of health-subject posts (n = 342) to derive initial coding categories (inductive coding).Finally, the study implemented a double-coding procedure on a probabilistic sample of health-subject posts (n = 264) to validate the initial coding categories (validation coding).Collectively, the three coding procedures produced 7 exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories of health-subject posts.The proposed classification provides a comprehensive framework for thinking about posts with health content.For social marketers, it provides guidance to create the stream of content necessary to stimulate daily interactions in social media channels.For researchers, it offers a solid conceptual foundation to categorize and measure health-subject posts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.946 | 0.935 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".