Adolescent Emoji Use in Text-Based Messaging: Focus Group Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Adolescents increasingly communicate through text-based messaging platforms such as SMS and social media messaging. These are now the dominant platforms for communication between adolescents, and adolescents use them to obtain emotional support from parents and other adults. The absence of nonverbal cues can make it challenging to communicate emotions on these platforms, however, so users rely on emojis to communicate sentiment or imbue messages with emotional tone. While research has investigated the functions of emojis in adult communication, less is known about adolescent emoji use. Objective: This study sought to understand whether the pragmatic functions of adolescent emoji use resemble those of adults, and to gain insight into the semantic meanings of emojis sent by adolescents. Methods: Web-based focus groups were conducted with a convenience sample of adolescents, in which participants responded to questions about their use and interpretation of emojis and engaged in unstructured interactions with one another. Two trained coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative coding procedure to identify themes in the discussion. Results: A total of 6 focus groups were conducted with 31 adolescent participants (mean age 16.2, SD 1.5 years). Discussion in the groups generally fell into 4 themes: emojis as humorous or absurd, emokis as insincere or complex expressions of setiment, emojis as straightforward experssions of sentiment, and emojis as having context-dependent meanings. Across themes, participants often described important differences between their own emoji use and emoji use by adults. Conclusions: Adolescent focus group participants described patterns of emoji use that largely resembled those observed in studies of adults. Like adults, our adolescent participants described emojis' semantic meanings as being highly flexible and context-dependent. They also described both phatic and emotive functions of emoji use but described both functions in ways that differed from the patterns of emoji use described in adult samples. Adolescents described their phatic emoji use as absurd and described their emotive emoji use as most often sarcastic. These findings suggest that emoji use serves similar pragmatic functions for both adolescents and adults, but that adolescents see their emoji use as more complex than adult emoji use. This has important implications for adults who communicate with adolescents through text-based messaging and for researchers interested in adolescents' text-based communication.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle