MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201801798 · doi:10.5152/addicta.2021.21037

School Students’ Smartphone Addiction in Predicting the Identity Function

2021· article· en· W3201801798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bilal Kaya

Bibliographic record

VenueAddicta The Turkish Journal on Addictions · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmartphone addictionAddictionPsychologyIdentity (music)Function (biology)Mathematics educationArtPsychiatryAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to examine the mediating role of the level of alexithymia in the relationship between smartphone addiction and identity functions. The study group included 460 participants who were students attending Anatolian High Schools in four districts of Istanbul, and they were identified by a simple random sampling method. In this study, the Smartphone Addiction Scale-Short Version, the Identity Function Scale, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and a personal information form were used. The structural equation model (SEM) and bootstrapping were utilized to test the mediation analysis of the research. In the results of the analysis, it was found that smartphone addiction in high school students negatively predicted identity function (β = −0.37; p < .01), but positively predicted the alexithymia level (β = 0.43; p < .01). In addition, it was found that the alexithymia level of high school students negatively predicted identity function (β = −0.43; p < .01). Finally, it was concluded that the alexithymia level in high school students mediates smartphone addiction to predict identity functions (β = −0.19; p < .01). The model fit values were also found to be within acceptable values (χ2/df = 2.12, p < .0.1, RMSA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddicta The Turkish Journal on AddictionsSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207