MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2133547206 · doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02005.x

Television and children

2011· editorial· en· W2133547206 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Isaacs

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Paediatrics and Child Health · 2011
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSnackingMedicineEveningAdvertisingObesity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

‘I wish there was a knob on the TV so you could turn up the intelligence. They got one marked “brightness” but it don't work, does it?’— Leo Anthony Gallagher, US comedian If you read the newspapers, television is associated with all the ills known to mankind. But, as competing media, they would say that, wouldn't they? What is the evidence that television is harmful? Television can trigger seizures in children with photic epilepsy. Several televisions fall on Canadian children every year and doctors feel compelled to report this with alarming alliteration.1 The major points of controversy, however, are about the duration and sedentary nature of television watching and the content. Does watching too much television cause obesity and does violent television content beget violence? It seems obvious that watching too much television leads to obesity, especially if the time spent watching is not spent exercising. But does increased television viewing cause obesity or do obese children tend to exercise less and watch more television? Snacking on fast foods while watching television complicates attempts to distinguish the chicken from the egg. As Joey Adams said, ‘If it weren't for the fact that the TV set and the refrigerator are so far apart, some of us wouldn't get any exercise at all.’ There is evidence that school-based interventions to promote exercise and improve fitness result in both weight reduction and reduced television watching.2 The message is clear: obese children should watch less television, snack less and exercise more. Achieving the behaviour change is the challenge. The relationship between television and violence is even more complex. A systematic review in 2005 found five meta-analyses, all US based, and concluded that violent imagery in television, film, computers and video games substantially increases the short-term likelihood of aggressive or fearful behaviour in young children, especially boys. However, the review concluded that the long-term outcomes of violent television imagery and the effects on older children and adolescents are much less clear cut.3 In contrast, a more recent systematic review found insufficient, contradictory and methodologically flawed evidence on the association between television viewing or video game playing and aggression in children and young people with behavioural and emotional difficulties.4 What plagues all research into the effects of television is the inevitable presence of confounding factors. The sort of family that is having trouble coping with child rearing is the sort of family that uses the television as a babysitter. And that family is also the sort of family that is least likely to vet the content and most likely to allow their children to watch programmes that all of us would consider inappropriate childhood viewing. Appropriate play opportunities as an alternative would be ideal. Our children's primary school teacher exhorted parents not to allow their children to watch television before school, saying she could always tell the difference. Late-night television is a bigger problem for older children, although the Internet has probably taken over as a more major concern. Finally, it all boils down to parenting. Good parents put firm limits on the amount of time spent in front of the television, keep a close eye on content, prevent children watching inappropriate programmes and watch any potentially scary programmes, including the news, with their children to defuse fear. We all need to think how to interest and stimulate children without excessive resort to television. Mark Wotherspoon, the creator of the sculpture Television within, television without (Fig. 1), which was made from recycled television glass, says: ‘This work is about the role television is playing in our daily lives, and in particular its effects on children. A child gazing away from the television – towards the imagination.’ Television within, television without by Mark Wotherspoon, Sculpture by the Sea, Sydney, 2007 (photograph by Olga Kol).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,789

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Paediatrics and Child HealthMême sujetBullying, Victimization, and AggressionTravaux en français237 207