Smartphone Usage as a Predictor of Psychological Wellbeing among College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wellbeing is a state of good physical, psychological and social functioning of an individual enabling him to function in coherence with self and society. While health indicates the state of the body and mind, wellbeing refers to the positive side of physical, psychological and social functioning. Physical and psychological wellbeing is concerned just with the individual and social wellbeing is the ability to be in coherence with the society and maintaining good social relationships. Smartphone usage is a very important factor that needs to be studied in relation to their wellbeing as college students spend most of their time with their smartphone. In the present study, correlational research design was used to study the relationship between smartphone usage and their psychological wellbeing based on the objectives and hypotheses which need not be a cause and effect relationship. The study was carried out in Kakinada (also popular as Co-Canada), Andhra Pradesh. The sample size was 400 college students. The age group of the sample ranged from 16-25 years. The findings of the study indicated that the total psychological wellbeing of the college students showed negative correlation with ritualistic and problematic smartphone usage but not instrumental usage where the students used it for goal directed activities. Autonomy was the only psychological variable which was not predicted by smartphone usage. Instrumental smartphone use positively predicted some of the dimensions of psychological wellbeing but other usage patterns i.e., ritualistic and problematic usage negatively affected the psychological wellbeing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".