Liens entre la solitude et les types d'utilisation de Facebook
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La solitude est un problème grandissant dans la société. Cette étude s’intéresse aux liens entre les types d’utilisation de Facebook, le sentiment de solitude et la perception de soutien social. 311 québécois de 18 à 29 ans utilisateurs de Facebook ont rempli un questionnaire informatique composé de l’Échelle de solitude de l’Université Laval (ÉSUL), du Passive and Active Use Measure (PAUM) et d’une version adaptée du Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). L’hypothèse que l’utilisation passive de Facebook serait positivement liée au sentiment de solitude n’a pas été rejetée. Les hypothèses selon lesquelles il y aurait une association négative entre l’utilisation active de Facebook et le sentiment de solitude, que l’association négative entre l’utilisation active sociale de Facebook et le sentiment de solitude serait plus forte que celle entre l’utilisation active non sociale de Facebook et le sentiment de solitude et que la perception de soutien social expliquerait en partie la relation entre les types d’utilisation de Facebook et le sentiment de solitude ont été rejetées. La pertinence de promouvoir l’utilisation des réseaux sociaux comme moyen de contrer la solitude n’a pu être confirmée, toutefois la sensibilisation aux effets néfastes de l’utilisation passive de Facebook est une avenue intéressante.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".