The Influence of Social Support on College Students’ Mobile Phone Dependence: The Mediating Role of Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to further study the current situation and relationship of college students’ mobile phone dependence, social support and sense of security, a questionnaire survey was performed on 409 college students using the college students' mobile phone addiction tendency scale, social support assessment scale and sense of safety scale. The results showed that: (1) 40.24% of college students are moderate of mobile phone dependence, and 5.75% of college students had serious problem of mobile phone dependence; the social support and sense of security of college students were at the upper-middle level; there is no gender difference，no one child difference and no love difference of mobile phone dependence in college students; there is grade difference of mood change; (2) The social support and sense of security of people with high phone dependence are significantly lower than those with low phones Dependence; (3) Social dependence and sense of security have significant negative correlations and negative predictive effects on mobile phone dependence; (4) Security sense has a full mediating role between social support and mobile phone dependence, thus enhancing social support and the sense of security of college students can effectively improve their mobile phone dependence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".