MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103359422 · doi:10.1007/s00406-020-01211-1

A cross-sectional survey of internet use among university students

2020· article· en· W3103359422 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristina Adorjan, Simon Langgartner, Maximilian Maywald, Susanne Karch, Oliver Pogarell

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetPornographyAddictionPsychologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Cross-sectional studyMedicineGeographyWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last 2 decades have seen an increase in the number of reports of excessive internet use. Therefore, this study aimed to examine internet use among university students to gain more insight into the novel phenomenon of addictive internet use (AIU). Data were collected by the means of an online questionnaire sent to 4391 students. Approximately 10% of the 4391 students could be included in the statistical analysis. Of those 483 students, almost all (99.2%) used the internet, and a quarter (24.8%) showed AIU. The students used the internet mostly for information searches, random browsing, social networking, and online shopping; however, AIU was seen most often in the areas of social networking, random browsing, information searches, gaming, and pornography. One in four of the respondents showed addictive behavior in at least one area of internet use. Students with AIU in the area of random browsing were significantly less far advanced in their studies than those without AIU, and well-being was significantly poorer across AIU groups than in those who did not show AIU. The study confirms the importance of AIU, as reflected in the high prevalence of AIU among the students and the significantly lower level of well-being in those with AIU. Undifferentiated consideration of AIU does not do justice to its various facets, and future research should consider all areas of internet use, with the aim to increase understanding of the underlying mechanisms of AIU and develop more differentiated treatment approaches.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical NeuroscienceSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207