MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133198964 · doi:10.15173/mujph.v2i1.3768

Technology and Mental Health in Youth in North America

2024· article· W7133198964 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mariyam Salhia

Bibliographic record

VenueMcMaster University Journal of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAddictionPublic healthThe InternetPopulationHealth technologyPhysical health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology addiction is an emerging issue that can present itself in many ways. It is characterized by excessive and obsessive use of any form of technology. First identified by the World Health Organization as a public health concern in 2015, discussions of the dangers of excessive technology use have only risen. By 2015, 46.4% of the world’s population was online, and this number has only grown (Zheng et al., 2016). As young people’s technology use increases (Statistics Canada, 2021), it is crucial to examine the health implications of this phenomenon. This literature review sought to explore the impacts of technology addiction on the mental health of youth populations in North America. It focuses on defining the ways technology addiction can present itself, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and physical and mental health, while placing emphasis on these factors with respect to young people. Review of existing literature suggests that gaming disorder, problematic social media use and excessive internet use are of particular concern post-pandemic and have concerning impacts on both physical and mental health. These issues are exacerbated in youth, whose technology use has risen in recent years. As technology use increases and addiction takes on novel forms, it is vital that pathology is standardized to allow treatment pathways to be created and ensure proper diagnosis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcMaster University Journal of Public HealthSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207