MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498753440 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-211-0_5

Facebook Study Results

2015· book-chapter· es· W2498753440 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Leena Korpijaakko

Bibliographic record

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFriendshipPsychologySocial psychologySociologyMedia studiesPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facebook use is filled with paradox. On the one hand, it is said to make people feel closer to each other and boost psychological well-being (Ellison et al., 2007; Grimes & Fields, 2012; Turkle, 1995; Zhao et al., 2008); on the other hand, it is said to make people feel lonely and jealous of others (Philips & Moberly, 2013; Turkle, 2011). Scholars contend that Facebook use is changing the nature of what friend and friendship means, how people socialize, relate to others, and think about themselves.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.264 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensePublishers eBooksSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207