MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765341840 · doi:10.1080/08824096.2017.1384920

Parental Monitoring of Children’s Television Viewing in a Sample of Peruvian Caregivers

2017· article· en· W2765341840 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication Research Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsPsychologySample (material)Developmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parental monitoring of children’s television viewing is an important family practice that helps children understand the messages they find on advertisements and program content. Research points at different dimensions of monitoring, including parental co-viewing, rules about when and how much time children can watch television, and active parental mediation. The study describes different dimensions of parental monitoring in a sample of 303 caregivers of primary school children living in Lima. Main findings reveal that about a third of the sample engaged in parental monitoring never, rarely or sometimes, the education level of the caregiver was positively associated with limiting the time children can watch television, and that child’s age was negatively associated with the frequency of active mediation and limits on the content children may watch on TV. Further research is needed in order to understand the practice of parental monitoring across children’s age groups in the context of Peru.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.304 · 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