MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114248960 · doi:10.5539/ies.v5n3p56

The Use of Social Networking Sites among Malaysian University Students

2012· article· en· W2114248960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Afendi Hamat, Mohamed Amin Embi, Haslinda Abu Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInformal learningPopulationOnline learningMathematics educationPedagogySociologyMultimediaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social networking sites (SNSs) have increasingly become an important tool for young adults to interact and socialize with their peers. As most of these young adults are also learners, educators have been looking for ways to understand the phenomena in order to harness its potential for use in education. This is especially relevant in Malaysia where SNSs are popular among the youths, yet there is little data available to describe patterns of use for the wider segment of the target population. This study presents the results of a nationwide survey on tertiary level students in Malaysia. The results show that SNSs penetration is not at full 100% as initially assumed. The respondents spend the most time online for social networking and learning. The results also indicate that while the respondents are using SNS for the purpose of informal learning activities, only half (50.3%) use it to get in touch with their lecturers in informal learning contexts. The respondents also reported spending more time on SNS for socializing rather than learning and they do not believe the use of SNS is affecting their academic performance.

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)0.002
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations115
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207