MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adolescent Participation and Flow in Physically Active Leisure and Electronic Media Activities: Testing the Displacement Hypothesis

2005· article· en· W2327948659 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Roger C. Mannell, Andrew T. Kaczynski, Ryan M. Aronson

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyElectronic mediaVideo gameThe InternetExperience sampling methodDisplacement (psychology)Leisure timeExperiential learningMultimediaLeisure activitySocial psychologyPhysical activityComputer scienceMathematics educationWorld Wide WebMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationships between participation in various types of electronic media and time spent on other leisure activities have not been examined to any great extent and the research findings in the reported studies have been mixed. In this article, research is described in which 219 adolescents’ electronic media use (TV/video watching, computer/video game playing and Internet/web surfing) was monitored using a time use survey and the experiential sampling method. Behavioral and experiential data were analyzed with a particular focus on the impact of electronic media use on participation in physically active leisure. The findings were consistent with the “displacement” hypothesis. Those adolescents who engaged in higher levels of electronic media activities, in particular, TV/video watching and computer/video game playing, not only reported lower levels of physically active leisure but had more free time as a result of displacing non-leisure activities such as homework. While the overall patterns were similar for females and males, TV/video viewing among females and computer/video gaming among males created the greatest displacement in physically active leisure. More sedentary adolescents not only engaged in less physically active leisure but when they did participate they were less likely to experience intrinsically rewarding flow, and consequently, the psychological growth opportunities it provides.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations38
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and LeisureSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207