MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376132528 · doi:10.1177/00332941231175068

Burn or Balm?: Exploring University Students’ Experiences With Social Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2023· article· en· W4376132528 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joanne Lee, Eileen Wood, Natasha Vogel, Edwin Santhosh, Preet K. Chauhan

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExtraversion and introversionSocial mediaBurnoutPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social supportBig Five personality traitsPersonalitySocial psychologyCompetence (human resources)Clinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact on perceived burnout experiences among university students from the intensification of social media use during the earliest phase of the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet fully understood. In total, 516 university students (430 females) in a midsized city in Ontario, Canada completed one online survey that explored student characteristics (i.e., personality, life satisfaction, perceived stress, and basic psychological needs) as well as frequency and perceived purpose of social media use. Approximately 80% indicated an increase in their social media use with iMessage/Text messaging, Instagram, and Snapchat being the three most frequently accessed platforms. Social media use was associated with higher levels of perceived stress, extraversion, satisfaction and frustration of psychological relatedness needs, and frustration of competence need. Most students (87%) reported experiencing burnout. Greater burnout was associated with individuals who reported higher perceived stress, scored high in extroversion, and greater use of Instagram. Overall, intensified social media use during the pandemic yielded both positive and negative outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207