MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386617494 · doi:10.2196/46746

Attitudes Toward School-Based Surveillance of Adolescents’ Social Media Activity: Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods Survey

2023· article· en· W4386617494 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Colin Burke, Cynthia Triplett, Caryn Kseniya Rubanovich, Melissa M. Karnaze, Cinnamon S. Bloss

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsStakeholderThematic analysisSocial mediaPsychologyFocus groupSexual orientationSocial psychologyClinical psychologyQualitative researchPolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: US schools increasingly implement commercially available technology for social media monitoring (SMM) of students, purportedly to address youth mental health and school safety. However, little is known about how SMM is perceived by stakeholders, including the students who are the focus of these efforts. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess attitudes toward SMM in schools among 4 stakeholder groups and examine reasons for holding supportive, neutral, or unsupportive views toward the technology. We also sought to explore whether any differences in attitudes were associated with binary sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity. METHODS: In October 2019, we conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods web-based survey of young adults (aged 18-22 y; n=206), parents (n=205), teachers (n=77), and school administrators (n=41) via Qualtrics web-based panels. We included Likert-type survey items to assess perceived benefits, risks, and overall support of SMM in schools and test for differences based on stakeholder group or demographic characteristics. We also included open-ended questions, and the responses to these items were analyzed using thematic content analysis of reasons given for holding supportive, neutral, or unsupportive views. RESULTS: The tests of group differences showed that young adults perceived lower benefit (P<.001) as well as higher risk (P<.001) and expressed lower overall support (P<.001) of the use of SMM in schools than all other stakeholder groups. Individuals identifying as nonheterosexual also perceived lower benefit (P=.002) and higher risk (P=.02) and expressed lower overall support (P=.02) than their heterosexual counterparts; respondents who identified as people of racial and ethnic minorities also perceived higher risk (P=.04) than their White counterparts. Qualitative thematic content analysis revealed greater nuance in concerns about SMM. Specifically, the primary reasons given for not supporting SMM across all stakeholder groups were (1) skepticism about its utility, (2) perceived privacy violations, and (3) fears of inappropriate or discriminatory use of the data. Within the young adult group in particular, concerns were also raised about (4) unintended and adverse consequences, including the erosion of trust between students and school institutions and administrators, and the chronic adverse effects of constant or prolonged surveillance. Thematic analysis also showed that individuals in every stakeholder group who indicated overall support of SMM were likely to cite the potential for enhanced school safety as the reason. Young adults' overall stances toward SMM were the most polarized, either strongly for or strongly against SMM, and responses from teachers indicated similar polarization but more often favored support of SMM in schools. CONCLUSIONS: This study found differing perspectives among stakeholder groups regarding SMM in schools. More work is needed to assess the ways in which this type of surveillance is being implemented and the range and complexity of possible effects, particularly on students.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207