MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Advances in problematic usage of the internet research – A narrative review by experts from the European network for problematic usage of the internet

2022· review· en· W4291914097 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovaciós AlapInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAllerganNational Institutes of HealthServierEötvös Loránd TudományegyetemEuropean College of NeuropsychopharmacologyMedical Research CouncilDepartment of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian GovernmentUniversität zu LübeckAustralian Research CouncilMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaIdorsia PharmaceuticalsCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud MentalWilson FoundationZonMwDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftH. Lundbeck A/SMonash UniversityDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaUniversität Duisburg-EssenVistagen TherapeuticsEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefensePurdue PharmaAvanir PharmaceuticalsSanofiGW PharmaceuticalsPurdue UniversityWellcome TrustUniversity of OxfordAustralian GovernmentPfizerLivaNovaNational Research, Development and Innovation OfficeMedizinischen Hochschule HannoverYale UniversityBrainsWayNational Center for Responsible GamingInnovációs és Technológiai MinisztériumAmerican Psychiatric Publishing
KeywordsPsychologyThe InternetHarmPublic healthConceptualizationPolitical sciencePublic relationsMedicineComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global concern about problematic usage of the internet (PUI), and its public health and societal costs, continues to grow, sharpened in focus under the privations of the COVID-19 pandemic. This narrative review reports the expert opinions of members of the largest international network of researchers on PUI in the framework of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action (CA 16207), on the scientific progress made and the critical knowledge gaps remaining to be filled as the term of the Action reaches its conclusion. A key advance has been achieving consensus on the clinical definition of various forms of PUI. Based on the overarching public health principles of protecting individuals and the public from harm and promoting the highest attainable standard of health, the World Health Organisation has introduced several new structured diagnoses into the ICD-11, including gambling disorder, gaming disorder, compulsive sexual behaviour disorder, and other unspecified or specified disorders due to addictive behaviours, alongside naming online activity as a diagnostic specifier. These definitions provide for the first time a sound platform for developing systematic networked research into various forms of PUI at global scale. Progress has also been made in areas such as refining and simplifying some of the available assessment instruments, clarifying the underpinning brain-based and social determinants, and building more empirically based etiological models, as a basis for therapeutic intervention, alongside public engagement initiatives. However, important gaps in our knowledge remain to be tackled. Principal among these include a better understanding of the course and evolution of the PUI-related problems, across different age groups, genders and other specific vulnerable groups, reliable methods for early identification of individuals at risk (before PUI becomes disordered), efficacious preventative and therapeutic interventions and ethical health and social policy changes that adequately safeguard human digital rights. The paper concludes with recommendations for achievable research goals, based on longitudinal analysis of a large multinational cohort co-designed with public stakeholders.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.322 · 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