MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206556033 · doi:10.1145/3469859

Privacy and Safety on Social Networking Sites: Autistic and Non-Autistic Teenagers’ Attitudes and Behaviors

2022· article· en· W4206556033 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica N. Rocheleau, Sonia Chiasson

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPsychologyInternet privacyThematic analysisConversationAutismPopulationDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchComputer scienceMedicineCommunicationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autistic teenagers are suspected to be more vulnerable to privacy and safety threats on social networking sites (SNS) than the general population. However, there are no studies comparing these users’ privacy and safety concerns and protective strategies online with those reported by non-autistic teenagers. Furthermore, researchers have yet to identify possible explanations for autistic teenagers’ increased risk of online harms. To address these research gaps, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 autistic and 16 non-autistic teenagers assessing their privacy- and safety-related attitudes and behaviors on SNS, and factors affecting them. We used videos demonstrating relevant SNS scenarios as prompts to engage participants in conversation. Through our thematic analyses, we found evidence that autistic teenagers may be more averse to taking risks on SNS than non-autistic teenagers. Yet, several personal, social, and SNS design factors may make autistic teenagers more vulnerable to cyberbullying and social exclusion online. We provide recommendations for making SNS safer for autistic teenagers. Our research highlights the need for more inclusive usable privacy and security research with this population.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Computer-Human InteractionSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207