MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592348116 · doi:10.5220/0006166501390146

Fear of Missing out, Social Media Engagement, Smartphone Addiction and Distraction: Moderating Role of Self-Help Mobile Apps-based Interventions in the Youth

2017· article· en· W2592348116 on OpenAlexaff
Bobby Swar, Tahir Hameed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionDistractionMobile appsMental healthSocial mediaInternet privacySmartphone addictionPsychologyAddictionApplied psychologyThe InternetMobile technologyMobile deviceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartphones offer high mobility and internet connectivity at the same time which has led to a substantial increase in the number of active social media users on the move, especially the ‘Millennials’. The excessive use of smartphone has been linked with several issues including mental well-being. Recently, different mobile applications have emerged to help users track their excessive use of smartphones and protect them from potential risks to mental health. This paper uses self-determination theory to examine the moderating role of such mobile applications (or self-help interventions) on inter-relationships between social media engagement, smartphone addiction and smartphone distractions. Survey responses from 284 college students reveal that mobile applications could prove to be quite effective self-help interventions that can help the young people in self-regulating their smartphone use. These results have substantial implications for designing effective mobile app-based interventions to save young people from potential risks to their mental health, productivity, and safety in performing their daily tasks. Future research directions have also been pointed out.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations65
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207