Deprivation's role in adolescent social media use and its links to life satisfaction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents spend more time on social media than ever, making it necessary to understand the impact of social media use on their well-being. A largely unexplored, but potentially important, risk factor which may moderate effects of social media on well-being is material deprivation. Using 10-wave longitudinal data from 23,155 adolescents collected between 2009 and 2019, we test whether adolescents who spend more time on social media report lower levels of well-being, and whether differences in deprivation are associated with heightened sensitivity to positive or negative effects of their social media use. We find that deprived adolescents have less access to social media. However, those adolescents from deprived households who do have social media access spend slightly more time using it. Although we find that deprived adolescents are less satisfied with their lives, deprivation does not seem to affect the longitudinal link from time spent on social media to life satisfaction. • Deprived Adolescents are less satisfied with their lives. • Deprived Adolescents have less access to social media but when they have, they spent more time using it. • Social media use is negatively associated with life satisfaction. • Deprivation does not seem to affect the longitudinal association of social media use and life satisfaction.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it