MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055101333 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.367

Is Smartphone Usage Truly Smart? A Qualitative Investigation of IT Addictive Behaviors

2013· article· en· W2055101333 on OpenAlexaff
Liette Lapointe, Camille Boudreau‐Pinsonneault, Isaac Vaghefi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddictionExploratory researchQualitative researchSmart phoneAddictive behaviorPhenomenonGrounded theoryPsychologyQualitative analysisSmartphone addictionComputer scienceDependency (UML)Internet privacyApplied psychologyHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defined as the dependency to a technology that results in its excessive and compulsive use, IT addiction is seen as increasingly prevalent in today's societies. Recent research has revealed that IT addictive behaviors are creating serious problems for individuals and organizations alike. In this paper, we report the results of a qualitative study that aimed at investigating smart phone addictive usage. Building on 11 in-depth interviews and answers to 183 exploratory written questionnaires, we used a grounded theory approach to investigate this phenomenon. Our results reveal four smarphone user profiles. In two of these profiles, users are exhibiting addictive behaviors. In the first group, the users' profile corresponds to that of other types of additions. In the second group, known definitions of addiction do not apply and the characteristics of these users are very different. Our results thus suggest that adopting traditional conceptualizations of addiction will not be sufficient to define, understand and manage IT addictive behaviors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations74
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207