University Students' Local And Distant Social Ties: Using and integrating modes of communication on campus
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
Abstract The use of the Internet has increased dramatically in recent years, with university students becoming one of the most dominant user groups. This study investigated how the Internet is integrated into university students' communication habits. The authors focused on how online (email and instant messaging) and mobile (cellphones and texting) modes of communication are used in the context of offline modes (FTF and telephone) to support students' local and distant social ties. Using a mixed methods approach that combined survey data from 268 Canadian university students with focus group data, a rich description was obtained of what modes of communication students use, how they integrate them to fulfill communication needs, and the implications of this integration for the maintenance of social ties. It was found that friends were the most important communication partners in students' everyday lives. Regardless of the type of social tie, instant messaging was used the most for communication. Because of their high cost, the cellphone and texting were used less. Increased distance between communication partners reduced communication – local communication was more frequent for both friends and relatives. While instant messaging and email were used less for contact with those faraway, the decrease was not as sharp as with in-person and telephone contact. In particular, instant messaging was used extensively for distant contact with friends – often daily. While online modes were used widely for local communication, it was evident that they also filled communication gaps with those faraway. Because they were inexpensive and readily available on campus, email and instant messaging were highly used by students and they facilitated a close integration of far-flung ties into university students' everyday lives. Keywords: Computer-mediated communicationonline communicationInternetuniversity studentssocial tiesinstant messagingemailcellphonedistancecommunication patterns Acknowledgements Funding for this research was provided by a grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Anabel Quan-Haase. This paper has benefited from the advice and assistance of Jeren Balayeva, Jessica Collins, and Michael Brundin. I would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Notes 1 The survey questions are located online at http://publish.uwo.ca/∼aquanhaa/. 2 With the exception of email addresses, which double as IM contact information. 3 Of our 21 focus group participants, 17 started using IM in junior high school or high school.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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