The time is just a proxy for the importance you place on the meeting.

Simple examples:

In a one-on-one meeting, you're not going to open your laptop. You have to hold up your end.

In a meeting in which you know you will be answering questions, you'll be paying attention.

In a meeting which is about your work and decisions will be made, you pay attention.

Then again, in a meeting which is about work you care about, you pay attention.

Now the antitheses: if the meeting has many attendees, and you don't need to answer questions, and decisions about your work aren't being made... why are you even there? In fact, why are most people there? Is it a group bonding activity? That's a legitimate thing, but it should be fairly infrequent.

Or, in a meeting where one participant does all the talking... That's a lecture and not a meeting. The content can be documented centrally and emailed to everyone.

Sometimes that one participant crowds out the voices of others so no one bothers to speak up... The leader of the meeting needs to be confident enough to interrupt the person taking more than their fair share of time and then try to get participation from others in the group. Being wholly ready to cut off the aggressive personality that wants to constantly talk or repeat the same thing(s) over and over.

Sometimes a lecture is good though. If you want to teach someone a new concept, a lecture is probably better than just a document.

So long as that's the meeting's agenda.

And let people know why they are there.

I've been in countless meetings where it's been unclear why y presence was required.