MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380853529 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2023.102249

Peer assessment as a method for measuring harmful internet use

2023· article· en· W4380853529 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

VenueMethodsX · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetHarmUnintended consequencesScale (ratio)Rating scaleComputer scienceStatisticsPsychologySocial psychologyMathematicsWorld Wide WebLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harmful Internet use (HIU) describes unintended use of the Internet. It could be both self-harm and harming others. Our research goal is to develop a more accurate method for measuring HIU by this novel peer assessment. As such, it may become, with our call for more research, a paradigm shift supplementing every rating scale or other type of Internet use assessment. In addition to classic statistical analysis, structural equations have been employed. Results indicate that the true positive rate (TPR) is substantially higher than assessed in other studies.•Peer assessment improvement.•AUC for ROC was computed to establish cut-off points for the used scale.•Results obtained by the Structural Equation model indicate that parental care has a moderate influence on subjects' attempts to fight HIU.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.308 · 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