A typology of user liability to IT addiction
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 To date, information systems (IS) research mainly has provided a monolithic view of information technology (IT) use, considering it to be a desired behaviour with positive outcomes. However, given the dramatic increase in the use of technology during the last few years, susceptibility to IT addiction is increasingly becoming an important issue for technology users and IS researchers. In this paper, we report the results of a study that focuses on identifying variations in user liability to IT addiction, which reflects the susceptibility of individual users to develop IT addiction. First, a review of the literature in different disciplines (e.g. health, psychology and IS) allows us to better understand the concepts of IT addiction and liability to addiction. The literature review also provides an overview of the antecedents and consequences associated with IT addiction. Then, building on the analysis of 15 in‐depth interviews and 182 exploratory open‐ended surveys collected from smartphone users, we apply the concept of liability to addiction in the IT use context and propose a typological theory of user liability to IT addiction. Our typology reveals five ideal types; each can be associated to a user profile ( addict , fanatic , highly engaged , regular and thoughtful ). Building upon both the extant literature and our results, we put forth propositions to extend the theoretical contributions of the study. We finally discuss the contributions and implications of our paper for research and practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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