Mere Presence of a Cell Phone: Effects on Academic Ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research has suggested that cell phone use in the classroom and during learning-related tasks is detrimental to academic performance. Recently, the mere presence of a cell phone has been found to negatively affect relationships and to impair performance on learning and cognitive tasks. This study explored whether the presence (visibility without use) of a cell phone negatively impacts one’s performance on tests measuring preexisting academic ability. The study evaluated 45 participants; some were enrolled in an introductory psychology course, and others were members of the public. Three subtests from the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-4) were completed: spelling, sentence comprehension, and mathematics. During testing, half of the participants had cell phones, and the other half did not. Statistical analyses revealed no significant difference between the cell phone-present and cell phone-absent group on the sentence comprehension (p=.52), spelling (p=.07), and mathematics subtest (p=.11). Unexpectedly, a non-significant trend was observed in the opposite direction; that is, the cell phone-present group outperformed the cell phone-absent group on all subtests. Therefore, the original hypothesis suggesting that the cell phone-present group would be significantly poorer at demonstrating preexisting skills on tests of academic ability in comparison to the cell phone-present group was not supported.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".