MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413095559 · doi:10.1177/0961463x251358588

Internet pitstops: YouTube as a place for reimagining social time with nostalgia

2025· article· en· W4413095559 on OpenAlexaff
Richy Srirachanikorn

Bibliographic record

VenueTime & Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNostalgia and Consumer Behavior
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeThe InternetContext (archaeology)Social mediaSociologyEveryday lifeMedia studiesExpression (computer science)AestheticsArtPolitical scienceHistoryLiteratureWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay introduces the concept of internet pitstops to explain how and why YouTube has become a popular site for social timekeeping and expression. It reframes the cultural narrative that prolonged engagement with YouTube and specific short-form media is a symptom of ‘brain rot’. Instead, YouTube serves as an internet pitstop where individuals take shelter from the narrative that time has to be spent productively. It is this prolonged engagement with YouTube and its videos that social institutions come to label as unproductive, or media that causes ‘brain rot’. The essay draws on Henri Lefebvre’s notion of a ‘present without presence’ by arguing that social institutions use social time to impose pretexts over the context of time as a relational process between local actants. YouTube internet pitstops promote a reconstitution of time with presence: human commenters, the media content, and the in-built mechanisms reconstitute the present using social time. Crucially, nostalgia is integral to this contextual time that also reimagines the past, present, and future. Internet pitstops can be a useful theoretical tool for time scholars, nostalgia researchers, and sociologists interested in digital culture, time expression, and everyday life.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.013
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime & SocietySame topicNostalgia and Consumer BehaviorFrench-language works237,207