Understanding Adolescents’ Perceptions and Aspirations Towards Their Relationship With Personal Technology: Survey Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Understanding adolescents' relationship with technology is a pressing topic in this digital era. There seem to be both beneficial and detrimental implications that originate from use of technology by adolescents. Approximately 95% of adolescents have access to a smartphone, and several studies show a positive correlation between screen addiction and trends of anxiety and depression. At the same time, research shows that two-thirds of adolescents believe that technology is a necessity for connecting and making new friends. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this formative study was to understand adolescents' perception of their own and others' relationship with personal technology. METHODS: A survey was conducted with 619 adolescents ranging in age from 13 to 19 years. Adolescents were asked how they perceived the relationship with their personal technology, how they perceived others' (parents, siblings, or friends) relationship with personal technology, and how they wish to relate to their personal technology in the future. RESULTS: "Essential," "Distractive," and "Addictive" were the most commonly selected descriptors to describe both adolescents' own relationship with technology (essential: 106/619, 17.1%; distractive: 105/619, 17%; addictive: 88/619, 14.2% ) and others' relationship as well (essential: 96/619, 15.6%; distractive: 88/619, 14.3%; addictive: 90/619, 14.5%). Adolescents selected "Provides an escape" more to describe their own relationship with technology. Whereas, they selected "It's just a tool" and "Creates Barrier" more to describe others' relationship with technology. These trends are consistent across ages and genders. In addition, adolescents' aspirations for their relationship with their personal technology varied across ages: 13 to 15-year olds' top choice was "best friend", 16 to 17-year olds' top choice was "I don't believe in personal connection with mobile technology," and 18 to 19-year olds' top choice was "My personal assistant." CONCLUSIONS: Our 3-lens method allows us to examine how adolescents perceive their relationship with personal technology in comparison to others, as well as their future technological aspirations. Our findings suggest that adolescents see both communalities as well as differences in their own and others' relationships with technology. Their future aspirations for personal technology vary across age and gender. These preliminary findings will be examined further in our follow-up research.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».