MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404172719 · doi:10.1145/3686936

"Actually I Can Count My Blessings": User-Centered Design of an Application to Promote Gratitude Among Young Adults

2024· article· en· W4404172719 on OpenAlexaff
Ananya Bhattacharjee, Zichen Gong, Bingcheng Wang, Timothy James Luckcock, E. V. Watson, Elena Allica Abellan, Leslie Morrison Gutman, Anne Hsu, Joseph Jay Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsGratitudePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regular practice of gratitude has the potential to enhance psychological wellbeing and foster stronger social connections among young adults. However, there is a lack of research investigating user needs and expectations regarding gratitude-promoting applications. To address this gap, we employed a user-centered design approach to develop a mobile application that facilitates gratitude practice. Our formative study involved 20 participants who utilized an existing application, providing insights into their preferences for organizing expressions of gratitude and the significance of prompts for reflection and mood labeling after working hours. Building on these findings, we conducted a deployment study with 26 participants using our custom-designed application, which confirmed the positive impact of structured options to guide gratitude practice and highlighted the advantages of passive engagement with the application during busy periods. Our study contributes to the field by identifying key design considerations for promoting gratitude among young adults.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207