MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966900287 · doi:10.4018/jte.2011010104

Cellular Telephones and Social Interactions

2011· article· en· W1966900287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven Stern, Benjamin E. Grounds

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technoethics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJealousyAffect (linguistics)Internet privacyTracking (education)Quarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyOrder (exchange)Social psychologyBusinessComputer scienceCommunicationHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in technology often affect patterns of social interaction. In the current study, the authors examined how cellular telephones have made it possible for members of romantically involved couples to keep track of each other. The authors surveyed 69 undergraduates on their use of cellular telephones as well as their relationships and their level of sexual jealously. Results find that nearly a quarter of romantically involved cellular telephone users report tracking their significant other, and evidence shows that tracking behavior correlates with jealousy. Furthermore, participants frequently reported using countermeasures such as turning off their cellular telephones in order to avoid being tracked by others. In conclusion, newer communication technologies afford users to act upon protectiveness and jealousy more readily than before these technologies were available to the general public.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of TechnoethicsSame topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207