The Complementary Nature of Perceived and Actual Time Spent Online in Measuring Digital Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As online platforms become ubiquitous, there is growing concern that their use can potentially lead to negative outcomes in users' personal lives, such as disrupted sleep and impacted social relationships. A central question in the literature studying these problematic effects is whether they are associated with the amount of time users spend on online platforms. This is often addressed by either analyzing self-reported measures of time spent online, which are generally inaccurate, or using objective metrics derived from server logs or tracking software. Nonetheless, how the two types of time measures comparatively relate to problematic effects -- whether they complement or are redundant with each other in predicting problematicity -- remains unknown. Additionally, transparent research into this question is hindered by the literature's focus on closed platforms with inaccessible data, as well as selective analytical decisions that may lead to reproducibility issues. In this work, we investigate how both self-reported and data-derived metrics of time spent relate to potentially problematic effects arising from the use of an open, non-profit online chess platform. These effects include disruptions to sleep, relationships, school and work performance, and self-control. To this end, we distributed a gamified survey to players and linked their responses with publicly-available game logs. We find problematic effects to be associated with both self-reported and data-derived usage measures to similar degrees. However, analytical models incorporating both self-reported and actual time explain problematic effects significantly more effectively than models with either type of measure alone. Furthermore, these results persist across thousands of possible analytical decisions when using a robust and transparent statistical framework. This suggests that the two methods of measuring time spent measure contain distinct, complementary information about problematic usage outcomes and should be used in conjunction with each other.
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 | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".