MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134479906 · doi:10.1177/0743558412464522

Do Video Games Promote Positive Youth Development?

2012· article· en· W2134479906 on OpenAlexaff
Paul J. C. Adachi, Teena Willoughby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVideo gamePsychologyPositive Youth DevelopmentAdolescent developmentSocial psychologyApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMultimediaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We argue that video game play may meet Larson’s (2000) criteria for fostering initiative in youth, and thus, may be related to positive outcomes such as flow, cooperation, problem solving, and reduced in-group bias. However, developmental and social psychologists examining adolescent video game use have focused heavily on how video games are related to negative outcomes, while neglecting potential positive outcomes. In this article we review the adolescent video game literature, examining both negative and positive outcomes, and suggest important directions for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations102
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent ResearchSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207