The paradoxes of smartphone use: Understanding the user experience in today's connected world
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We use a paradox approach (Mick & Fournier) to explore how consumers use and experience their smartphones. To do so, we use a mixed method approach where we interviewed 28 participants across seven focus groups to learn more about when and how they used their smartphones. Participants reported many tensions with regard to their smartphone use, from which we derived one overarching paradox and five specific paradoxes, including two new paradoxes. To support and extend our qualitative findings, we also administered a questionnaire examining the proposed paradoxes and their possible connections to important consumer consequences such as ambivalence, attachment, and well‐being. Overall, we found evidence of a push and pull (or ambivalent) relationship between participants and their smartphones. Specifically, its great functionality and reliability make the connection cherished, but this ongoing reliance takes away the very same things it was meant to help build.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it