Friends, followers, peers, and posts: adolescents' in-person and online friendship networks and social media use influences on friendship closeness via the importance of technology for social connection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction With the proliferation of smartphones, social media access and use is ubiquitous. As such, many adolescent friendships now comprise both in-person and online contexts. Our paper explores the relationship between these contexts in two parts: the first is an exploratory comparison of in-person and online friendship networks with peers at school using descriptive social network analysis; the second, an investigation of how the use of different social media platforms relates to the importance placed on social media for connectedness and friendship closeness. Methods Participants were 547 adolescents ( M = 15.25 years, 52% male, 55% white) from six schools in Southern Ontario, Canada. Participants completed a peer nomination survey on their relationships with peers at school and a self-report survey on social media use. Results While in-person and online networks are largely overlapping, there are important differences between the two. Results from the path analyses suggest that length of cell phone usage, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube were positively associated with the importance placed on technology for social connection and that this importance was also positively associated with feelings of friendship closeness. Daily cell phone usage, Instagram, and Snapchat use were positively indirectly associated with friendship closeness through the importance of technology for social connection. Discussion Our findings also suggest slight gender differences, with daily time spent on a smartphone only significantly positively associated with the importance of technology for social connection for girls. Implications for future study are 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".