What mums think matters: A mediating model of maternal perceptions of the impact of screen time on preschoolers' actual screen time
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screen time during the preschool years is detrimental to wellbeing. The impact of parental perceptions on preschoolers' screen time is unknown. This paper explores the association between maternal perceptions of the impact of screen time on their preschoolers' wellbeing with their child's screen time and the potential mediating role of their perception of the appropriate amount of screen time. In 2013-2014, mothers of 575 preschoolers (2-5 years; metropolitan Melbourne and online sources) reported: their perceptions of the impact of screen time on 11 aspects of wellbeing, conceptually grouped to physical, social and cognitive well-being; their perceptions of the appropriate amount of screen time for preschoolers; and their child's actual screen time. Regression analyses investigated associations between perceptions and children's screen time. Mediation by perception of the appropriate amount of screen time was examined using indirect effects. Mothers' perceptions of the impact of screen time on social and cognitive wellbeing had a significant indirect effect on children's actual screen time through mothers' perception of the appropriate amount of screen time for their child. Findings illustrate the potential impact of parents' perceptions on their children's behaviors. Although a significant indirect effect was identified, direction of causality cannot be implied. Further exploration of the direction of association to determine causality, and interventions targeting parental perceptions, are warranted.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it