MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165079620 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/tjynk

A nudge-based intervention to reduce problematic smartphone use: Randomised controlled trial

2021· preprint· en· W3165079620 on OpenAlexaff
Jay A. Olson, Dasha A. Sandra, Denis Chmoulevitch, Amir Raz, Samuel P. L. Veissière

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapySmartphone applicationSmartphone appPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryMultimediaComputer scienceInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problematic smartphone use is rising across the world. We tested an intervention with ten strategies that nudge users to reduce their smartphone use, for example by disabling non-essential notifications and changing their display to greyscale. Participants first completed baseline measures of smartphone use, well-being, and cognition before choosing which intervention strategies to follow for two to six weeks. Study 1 (N = 51) used a pre–post design while Study 2 (N = 70) compared the intervention to a control group who monitored their screen time. Study 1 found reductions in problematic smartphone use, screen time, and depressive symptoms after two weeks. Study 2 found that the intervention reduced problematic smartphone use, lowered screen time, and improved sleep quality compared to the control group. Our brief intervention returned problematic smartphone use scores to normal levels for at least six weeks. These results demonstrate that various strategies can be combined while maintaining feasibility and efficacy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207