Digital Flourishing: Conceptualizing and Assessing Positive Perceptions of Mediated Social Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent research started to apply concepts of well-being to the context of computer mediated communication (e.g., social media, instant messaging). While much research investigates negative perceptions of mediated social interactions (e.g., “problematic” or “addictive” social media use), a multi-dimensional measure that taps into users? positive perceptions is sorely lacking. The present research therefore develops the first comprehensive measure of digital flourishing , defined as positive perceptions of mediated social interactions. Building on a qualitative pre-study that aided the construction of the Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS), Study 1 ( N = 474) employed exploratory factor analysis to reveal five subdimensions of digital flourishing. The preregistered Study 2 ( N = 438) confirmed these five dimensions, yielding five reliable items per subscale and initial construct validity with three psychological needs from self-determination theory (SDT; competence, autonomy, relatedness) which were used as an underlying well-being framework for the development of the DFS. The preregistered Study 3 generated further construct validity by directly relating DFS to well-being. The scale is relevant for researchers and practitioners alike to better understand how users perceive their mediated interactions to impact mental health and well-being.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".