MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394938832 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.2.004

Cyberloafing activities and social media addiction among netizens: A predictive approach

2024· article· en· W4394938832 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tak Jie Chan, Jun Ying Chew, Tengku Siti Aisha Tengku Mohd Azzman, Tze Wei Liew, Sheh Chin Foo, Yang Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMultimedia University
KeywordsSocial mediaAddictionPsychologySocial psychologyInternet privacySociologyCriminologyPsychiatryWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media usage has increased tremendously in recent years. However, when users cannot control their social media usage, it might have some negative impacts on personal and social life, which lead to the cyberloafing phenomenon. This study aims to examine the influence of cyberloafing activities (sharing, shopping, gaming, accessing online content, real-time updating) and social media addiction among netizens. This study utilized Uses and Gratification Theory (U&G) as a theoretical basis to explain the framework. The quantitative method was implemented in this study. An online survey questionnaire was used to collect data and 318 valid respondents were generated. Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling via Smart-PLS was used to analyze the data. The study showed that two cyberloafing activities, namely real-time updating and sharing significantly impact social media addiction. However, the other cyberloafing activities (accessing online content, gaming, shopping) do not contribute to social media addiction. This study may help students and employees to be cognizant of the symptoms of cyberloafing and social media addiction. In addition, it also helps government agencies such as Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to produce strategies that can address addiction among netizens and youths. Conclusion, implications, and future research directions were discussed.

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)0.004
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicCyberloafing and Workplace BehaviorFrench-language works237,207