Time Use and Well-being of Belgian Adolescents: Research Findings and Time Use Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting the well-being of young people is one of the main policy goals of youth policies in many Western countries. Yet a clear and distinct definition of the concept of well-being is not available. This paper discusses the measurement of well-being in Belgian youth research and factors influencing the well-being of adolescents. The paper also examines the time use of Belgian adolescents using data from the 1999 Belgian Time Use Survey, differentiating adolescents by gender, age, educational track and parents’ educational background. The time use of the 12- to 19-year olds attending secondary school is compared with the time use of the total population. Finally, we examine data about the subjective health of young people. Surveybased youth research stresses the growing importance of peers for the well-being of teens in late adolescence. This observation is supported by the analyses of time use data. Time use data show that boys engage more than girls in physically active leisure and games, while girls are more actively involved in what is sometimes labelled as “bedroom culture.” As adolescents grow up they are more involved in social leisure, spend less time at home and spend more time with peers. Seventy two percent of adolescents report that they are in very good health. These teenagers spend less time on computers, surfing the net and hobbies. They are less alone and spend more time in the company of others. The time use data reveal that the total workload of adolescents equals that of the population in general.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".