Adolescent social media use and its association with relationships and connections: Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children, 2017/2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The development of healthy relationships and connections is of fundamental importance to adolescent well-being. The use of social media plays a vital role in the lives of young Canadians, yet the association between different types of social media use and the quality of relationships and connections remains unknown, and most existing analyses on this topic are based on modest and non-representative samples. Data and methods: Using 2017/2018 reports from the nationally representative Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study (n=17,149; ages 11 to 15 years), the strength, consistency and significance of associations was examined between intensive (frequent use to connect with other people) and problematic (use that depicts addictive qualities) social media use and available measures of adolescent relationships and connections. Results: Overall, intensive use (online communication with others almost all of the time) and problematic use (potential addiction to social media) were more common in girls than boys (38% of girls versus 30% of boys and 7.7% of girls versus 5.2% of boys, respectively), with prevalence levels that rose with age. Intensive use was associated with more positive social relationships with friends, especially among girls (relative risk [RR] = 1.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 - 1.54]), while problematic use was consistently and negatively associated with strong relationships and connections in all groups in the study. Notably, problematic use was negatively associated with strong family relationships in boys (RR = 0.58 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.79]) and girls (RR=0.48 [95% CI 0.36 to 0.63]). Interpretation: Intensive use of social media has the potential to strengthen relationships and connections in adolescents. However, when social media use becomes addictive or "problematic", it is highly correlated with weaker relationships and a sense of social disconnection. Public health initiatives related to social media use should consider how different types of social media use have the potential to impact on different aspects of health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".