MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967213412 · doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0214

The Influence of Shyness on the Use of Facebook in an Undergraduate Sample

2009· article· en· W1967213412 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Orr, Mia Sisic, Craig Ross, Mary G. Simmering, Jaime M. Arseneault, Rhonda Orr

Bibliographic record

VenueCyberPsychology & Behavior · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShynessPsychologyPersonalityTraitSocial psychologyBig Five personality traitsSample (material)CyberpsychologySocial mediaWorld Wide WebAnxietyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have suggested that individual differences will help to determine which online communication tools appeal to and are used by different individuals. With respect to the domain of computer-mediated communication, shyness is a particular personality trait of interest, as forums provide opportunities for social interactions that shy individuals might otherwise avoid. The present study investigated the personality trait of shyness and its relation with certain features of an online communication tool (Facebook). We hypothesized that shyness would be significantly related to the quantity of time spent on Facebook, the number of contacts added to one's Facebook profile, and attitudes toward Facebook. Our findings supported that shyness was significantly positively correlated with the time spent on Facebook and having favorable attitudes toward the social networking site. Furthermore, shyness was significantly negatively correlated with the number of Facebook "Friends.'' Limitations of the present study and suggestions for future research are addressed.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations318
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCyberPsychology & BehaviorSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207