MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014347815 · doi:10.1177/0093650220911809

Mortality Salience and Mobile Voice Calling: A Case of a Massive Natural Disaster

2020· article· en· W3014347815 on OpenAlexaff
Takahisa Suzuki, Tetsuro Kobayashi, Jeffrey Boase, Yuko Tanaka, Ryutaro Wakimoto, Tsutomu Suzuki

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Informatics
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)Natural disasterPsychologyPriming (agriculture)Mortality salienceInterpersonal tiesSocial psychologyCommunicationCognitive psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observational studies have found that the frequency of mobile communication with close ties increases in times of emergency. However, the mechanisms underlying such increases are not well understood. Drawing upon terror management theory, this study predicted that increased mortality salience due to disaster promotes mobile voice calling to close ties. By analyzing digitally traced behavioral data, Study 1 found that mobile voice calls to close ties increased after the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, especially in areas where there were severe tremors. Study 2 employed a field experiment and demonstrated that psychologically priming respondents to recall the earthquake led to an increase in the number of outgoing mobile voice calls to close ties, but not to non-close ties. The theoretical implications for mobile communication in time of disaster 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication ResearchSame topicDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionFrench-language works237,207