Developmental and family considerations in internet use disorder taxonomy. Commentary on: How to overcome taxonomical problems in the study of Internet use disorders and what to do with “smartphone addiction”? (Montag et al., 2020)
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
Montag, Wegmann, Sariyska, Demetrovics, and Brand (2019) propose an important framework surrounding the taxonomy of problematic internet usage, with particular applications to disentangling the role of mobile and other handheld devices versus stationary platforms. This is a critical contribution, as organizational frameworks have begun to move past "whether" there is disordered internet use, and towards better understanding the complex and multifaceted ways in which internet usage can be related to psychological maladjustment. In the present commentary, we encourage authors to extend this framework by incorporating developmental complexities. Montag and colleagues' (2019) contribution is discussed with reference to children and families, including: (1) the conceptualization of problematic internet usage and associated behaviors across the early years, (2) the types of internet use and devices that are most salient for young users, (3) the embedding of children's internet consumption within the context of a broader pattern of family media usage, and (4) the construct of behavioral addictions in pediatric populations. Recommendations for science and practice are briefly discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it