Mobile Phone Assessment in Egocentric Networks: A Pilot Study on Gay Men and Their Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile phone-based data collection encompasses the richness of social network research. Both individual-level and network-level measures can be recorded. For example, health-related behaviors can be reported via mobile assessment. Social interactions can be assessed by phone-log data. Yet the potential of mobile phone data collection has largely been untapped. This is especially true of egocentric studies in public health settings where mobile phones can enhance both data collection and intervention delivery, e.g. mobile users can video chat with counselors. This is due in part to privacy issues and other barriers that are more difficult to address outside of academic settings where most mobile research to date has taken place. In this article, we aim to inform a broader discussion on mobile research. In particular, benefits and challenges to mobile phone-based data collection are highlighted through our mobile phone-based pilot study that was conducted on egocentric networks of 12 gay men (n = 44 total participants). HIV-transmission and general health behaviors were reported through a mobile phone-based daily assessment that was administered through study participants' own mobile phones. Phone log information was collected from gay men with Android phones. Benefits and challenges to mobile implementation are discussed, along with the application of multi-level models to the type of longitudinal egocentric data that we collected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".