Daily Time-Use Patterns, Psychological Well-Being, and Family Socioeconomic Status of South Korean Adolescents: A Mixture Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study sought to identify different types of South Korean adolescents’ time-use patterns across various daily activities, compare the levels of psychological well-being among the identified groups, and examine the association between daily time-use patterns and family socioeconomic status. By using the fifth wave of Korean Children and Youth Panel Survey, the data of 1,764 eighth grade students currently living in two-parent families were analyzed using a mixture modeling. The best fitting model revealed four types of time-use patterns: (1) Study Hard (2) No Hagwon, but Independent Studies (3) Only Hagwon, and (4) No study, Skewed toward Entertainment. Differences in the level of psychological well-being were found for different time-use types. Moreover, the probability of being included in each type varied according to family socioeconomic status. The results demonstrated the role of family socioeconomic status in adolescents’ time-use patterns and verified the differences in the level of psychological well-being according to how adolescents used their daily time.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".