Television viewing, computer use and total screen time in Canadian youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has linked excessive television viewing and computer use in children and adolescents to a variety of health and social problems. Current recommendations are that screen time in children and adolescents should be limited to no more than 2 h per day. OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of Canadian youth meeting the screen time guideline recommendations. METHODS: The representative study sample consisted of 6942 Canadian youth in grades 6 to 10 who participated in the 2001/2002 World Health Organization Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children survey. RESULTS: Only 41% of girls and 34% of boys in grades 6 to 10 watched 2 h or less of television per day. Once the time of leisure computer use was included and total daily screen time was examined, only 18% of girls and 14% of boys met the guidelines. The prevalence of those meeting the screen time guidelines was higher in girls than boys. CONCLUSION: Fewer than 20% of Canadian youth in grades 6 to 10 met the total screen time guidelines, suggesting that increased public health interventions are needed to reduce the number of leisure time hours that Canadian youth spend watching television and using the computer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".