The association between smartphone use, stress, and anxiety: A meta‐analytic review
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
Research investigating the various mental, physical, and social effects of smartphone use has proliferated in the previous decade. Two variables of interest in this literature are the levels of anxiety and stress associated with smartphone use. The current meta-analysis aimed to provide the first quantitative review of this literature, as well as determine potential moderators that might influence this relationship. A total of 39 independent samples (N = 21, 736) were used to compute a summary effect size of r = .22, p < .001, CI [.17-.28] indicating a small-to-medium association between smartphone use and stress and anxiety. Significant moderators included the year in which the article was published, as well as whether problematic or nonproblematic phone use was assessed. In addition, studies using validated measures of smartphone use indicated a (nonsignificantly) larger association than studies using nonvalidated measures. Strengths and limitations of the meta-analysis, as well as future directions of research are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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