Grandparenting with media: patterns of mediating grandchildren’s media use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many grandparents are involved in caring for their grandchildren, they were completely ignored in previous research on mediation of children's media use. Informed by the Grandfather Involvement Framework and the Process Model of the Determinants of Grandparenting, the present study aims at exploring variations among grandparents in mediation patterns. The study was based on a survey of 356 grandparents of young children, who reported taking care of their grandchildren at least once a week. Analysis identified three groups of grandparents according to their mediation patterns: Highly involved, non-restrictive and less involved. Mediation patterns correlated significantly with grandchildren's age, context of caregiving, motivations for media use while caregiving and its outcomes, and involvement in other leisure activities with the grandchildren. Furthermore, the less involved mediators reported significantly lower self-evaluation than did those in the other groups, even after controlling for all differentiating variables. Results suggest that mediation of grandchildren's media uses may be considered integral to grandparental involvement in general and may be beneficial to both generations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".