MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468579378 · doi:10.14288/1.0300168

An ecology of technology : infants, toddlers, and mobile screen devices

2016· article· en· W2468579378 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michaela Birgitta Wooldridge

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyMobile deviceComputer scienceBiologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within a bio-ecological systems framework, this study explored the presence and use of mobile screen devices (MSDs) within family homes of infants born into a Digital Age. A mixed methods approach was used to gather and analyze data from an online questionnaire completed by 292 Canadian parents with a child birth to three years old, as well as from home-based observations and interviews with 28 families. There were three research questions: (1) How do the presence and use of MSDs relate to factors of the family environment? (2) Do parent knowledge and beliefs predict the reasons that parents provide MSDs to their children? and (3) Do parent knowledge and beliefs predict how much time a child spends using MSDs? Results for question 1 found MSDs to shape the physical, social, and psychological family context. On average, families owned 6 MSDs, the parent used MSDs for 7 hours per day, and 60% of children directly used an MSD. Themes of concerns about technology included impacts on the child, the parent and family, and society. Parents’ beliefs about MSDs for children were more negative than positive, and child MSD products were negatively evaluated. On measures of developmental knowledge and parenting sense of competence, scores were average and above average, respectively. Results for question 2 found that child age, maternal education, the number of MSDs, the interaction of positive MSD beliefs with the number of MSDs and the interaction of maternal education with parenting sense of competence predicted parents’ provision of their MSD to their child. Results for question 3 found that child age, number of family MSDs, and positive beliefs in MSDs for children were predictors for child use of MSDs, while child age, maternal education, parent time using MSDs, and knowledge of development predicted the amount of time children used MSDs. The complex interplay between sociodemographics, parent provision of MSDs to infants and toddlers, and parent knowledge and beliefs that form a climate of new demands for parents in their child-raising roles is discussed in terms of implications for developmental researchers and practitioners working with infants, toddlers, and/or their caregivers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207