La presentación de la persona en las redes sociales : una aproximación desde la obra de Erving Goffman
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las redes sociales digitales han adquirido una importancia creciente como espacio de interacción y comunicación interpersonal. Aunque con las peculiaridades propias del ámbito digital, en ellas también se expresa la identidad personal de sus usuarios. En el artículo se explora cómo se presenta el “yo” en las redes sociales. Se toma como punto de partida la obra de Erving Goffman titulada La presentación de la persona en la vida cotidiana (1959), donde el sociólogo canadiense presentaba un enfoque dramatúrgico de la interacción social. Se expone su modelo teórico y se aplica al ámbito de las interacciones online, poniéndolo en diálogo con numerosas investigaciones cuantitativas y estudios empíricos sobre expresión de la identidad en internet. Se concluye afirmando la vigencia del pensamiento goffmaniano y mostrando, en materia de expresión identitaria, las semejanzas y diferencias entre la comunicación presencial y la comunicación mediada por la tecnología.Palabras clave: redes sociales, identidad, expresión del yo, Erving Goffman, interacción, comunicación interpersonal. Social network sites have become increasingly important as a space for interaction and interpersonal communication. Their users also expressed their personal identities, although the specific nature of the digital realm. The paper explores how self-expression is perfomed in social networks. The starting point is Erving Goffman’ work titled The Presentation of Self in everyday life (1959), where the Canadian sociologist developed a dramaturgical model of social interaction. We show his theoretical model projecting it to the field of online interactions and putting it in dialogue with numerous quantitative research and empirical studies on expression of identity on the Internet. We conclude by affirming the validity of Goffmanian thought and showing, in terms of expression of identity, the similarities and differences between face-to-face communication and computer-mediated communication. Keywords: social network sites, identity, self-expression, Erving Goffman, interaction, interpersonal communication
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.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it