The Relationship Between Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) Levels and Cyberloafing Behaviour of Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between teachers’ fear of missing out (FoMO) levels and their cyberloafing behaviour and to reveal whether teachers’ FoMO and their cyberloafing behaviour differ according to their gender. The sample of the research consisted of 702 secondary school teachers working in state schools within the borders of Istanbul in 2019-2020 education year. According to the research, it was identified that the level of teachers’ FoMO levels and cyberloafing behaviours were moderate. It was detected that teachers’ FoMO levels differed significantly according to gender. With this result, male teachers’ FoMO levels were higher than female teachers’ FoMO levels. Similarly, it was observed that there was a significant difference between teachers’ cyberloafing behaviour and gender. According to this result, it was found that male teachers’ mean score of cyberloafing behaviour was higher than female teachers’ mean score of cyberloafing behaviour in all sub-scales. In addition, a positive significant relationship between teachers’ FoMO and their cyberloafing behaviour was observed.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".