MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411801370 · doi:10.1111/nyas.15409

Beyond problematic social media use and the brain: A public health and policy perspective

2025· article· en· W4411801370 on OpenAlexaff
Holly Shannon, Matteo Montgomery, Andreas Funk, Alireza Kamyabi, Madison Hunt, Ceinwen Pope, Kim Hellemans, Synthia Guimond

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisVancouver Coastal HealthCarleton UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallelsAddictionPublic healthPerspective (graphical)PsychologyPsychological interventionHealth promotionMental healthSocial mediaPromotion (chess)Health policyPublic relationsMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatryComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing concerns about the impact of social media on youth mental health have been a topic of particular interest. However, maladaptive patterns of use, such as problematic social media use (PSMU), do not currently have official diagnostic recognition as a possible behavioral addiction. This commentary discusses PSMU within a framework of addictive behavior and the underlying neurobiological mechanisms. In addition, opportunities to prevent and mitigate PSMU in public health policy and practice are explored, including health protection, preventive interventions, assessment and surveillance, and health promotion. This comprehensive approach incorporates learning from existing public health frameworks and parallels to behavioral and substance use addictions.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0250.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207