MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767622353 · doi:10.1177/0735633117738281

Social Networking and Academic Performance: A Generalized Structured Component Approach

2017· article· en· W2767622353 on OpenAlexaff
Tenzin Doleck, Paul Bazelais, David John Lemay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Computing Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityVariety (cybernetics)Affect (linguistics)PsychologyAcademic achievementExploratory researchEducational researchComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceSocial psychologyMathematics educationSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of social networking sites (SNS) use by students has been accompanied by both concerns and excitement regarding the consequences of SNS use. Research on SNS use has become increasingly popular in the educational literature. There are a variety of ways that SNS use can affect students, and indeed the work in this stream of research has documented the links between SNS use and various outcome variables. One research question raised given the popularity of SNS with students—which has been both limited and inconsistent in published results—concerns the link between SNS use and academic performance. As SNS use increases, such questions aimed at disentangling the link have become increasingly important to address. However, related investigations have yielded conflicting results and are deficient in documenting the interplay and influences of other variables. The present study aims to clarify the association between SNS and academic performance by testing an exploratory model to examine the connections between SNS use, student-school traits, and academic performance. We suggest that educational researchers should distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive SNS use in academic settings.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational Computing ResearchSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207