MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7113060447

Psychological Perspectives on Media Violence

2023· book-chapter· en· W7113060447 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueVBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
Keywordsnot available
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the ubiquity of digital media and the thousands of hours people spend consuming digital media each year, it is hardly surprising that researchers devote considerable effort to understanding media effects. Although many other aspects of media effects have been studied (e.g., advertising, educational media, etc.), the most-studied effect in the psychological literature is that of violent media. Most of these studies have focused on effects associated with the exposure to violent television shows and films. In the 1970s, researchers converged on the conclusion that violent television increased consumers’ risk for aggressive behavior, a consensus begun by the 1972 U.S. Surgeon General’s report on television violence. It is important to note that the vast majority of this research involved aggressive behavior, not violence. Although news reports and critics often use those words interchangeably, the distinction is critically important. Research typically involves aggressive behavior, defined as any action (verbal, relational, or physical) intended to harm someone who would not wish to be harmed, as well as the precursors of aggression (e.g., emotions, attitudes, thoughts). Such measures do not constitute “violence,” an extreme subtype of physical aggression that would, if successful, cause severe bodily damage or death. As such, it is important to examine the language surrounding any claim about violent media effects carefully, to avoid falling into the trap of manipulative rhetoric. With the advent of interactive digital media, the topic of media violence has once again risen to prominence and controversy. Researchers and laypersons alike questioned whether the interactive nature of video games meant that violent games would affect people in a different way than traditional media. Although the consensus among most media researchers and public health officials is that the effects of violent video games are no different than for other violent media, misconceptions and misrepresentations of the research persist. Those motivated to believe that violent content effects do not exist narrowly focus on the limitations of individual studies or measures and rely on studies that themselves suffer from serious methodological limitations. However, when the literature is viewed as a whole, with an emphasis on converging evidence and methods with overlapping strengths, the literature converges on the conclusion that violent video games, like violent television, are one risk factor for aggression.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueVBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet)→Same topicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression→French-language works237,207→