MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311680952 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15227

Does Reducing Social Media Use Have an Effect on Loneliness and Social Comparisons?

2022· dissertation· en· W4311680952 on OpenAlexaff
Wardah Mahboob

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyDistressIntervention (counseling)AnxietyClinical psychologySocial anxietySocial mediaRepeated measures designDepression (economics)Social psychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media and mental health issues have become increasingly prevalent in recent years raising questions about the psychological effects of excessive social media use (SMU), especially amongst transitional-aged youth (TAY).The present study experimentally investigated the effects of voluntarily reducing SMU to 1 hour/day on loneliness and social comparisons in TAY with pre-existing symptoms of anxiety and/or depression.After completing a baseline survey and providing daily screenshots of SMU for one week, 220 participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group for the next three weeks.Participants completed an online follow-up survey at 4-weeks post randomization to assess changes in loneliness and social comparisons.A repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that the intervention group showed significantly greater reductions in loneliness but not in social comparisons.The findings suggest that reducing SMU may represent a feasible, affordable and effective strategy in reducing loneliness for TAY with emotional distress.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImpact of Technology on Adolescents→French-language works237,207→