Examining screen time: The role of parents' efficacy for child's activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a health perspective, both decreasing screen time and increasing physical activity are important (Danielsen et al., 2011). Although they are independent behaviors (Taveras et al., 2007), it is likely that they compete for scheduling during a child's discretionary leisure time. As parents play a role in both (Smith et al., 2010), one wonders whether the confidence of parents to keep their children active would be associated with less screen time for children. This study examined how parents' efficacy to manage their child's activity relates to screen time, with child's age as a moderator. Parents (N=24) of children aged 2-18 completed an online survey twice (1 week apart). Screen time was assessed by parents' reports of television, computer and video game use. To assess parental efficacy, parents reported their confidence to manage their child's activity (Kraft et al., 2012). In predicting screen time at time 2, previous screen time (time 1) and age were entered on step 1, parental efficacy (time 1) on step 2 and an age by efficacy interaction on step 3. The interaction was significant (R2change=.14, p=.04). Inspection of the simple slopes revealed that parents of older children who were more vs. less efficacious in keeping their children active reported their children had less screen time (p=.02). This provides preliminary evidence that parents' confidence in keeping their children active may be associated with lesser screen time, especially when children are older.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".