Relational dimensions in poor children’s decisions to obtain a mobile phone – the case of Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children’s influence on the purchase of mobile phones, particularly among poor children, received little research attention. To study the dilemma children from poor home face between strong desire to be part of the media peer culture within the context of family’s financial distress, and hence, limited access to mobile phones, this paper utilized vignette as a tool to elicit children’s thoughts and considerations in whether to purchase mobile phones. Sixty children from families receiving government financial assistance were interviewed. Relational influence lens stemmed from social relations theory were sensitizing lens used to analyse children’s decision processes. Data analysis revealed three levels of themes in the way children interpreted and strategized their decision, namely: individualistic, dyadic relational and communal relational themes. The findings challenge the notion that immediate gratification dominates the decision-making frame of low-income people. Instead, poor children demonstrate sophisticated abilities to consider the needs at multiple levels of their ecological contexts. Evidence from this study supports the need for conceptual extension of theorizing children beyond individualistic agents but as relational agents in the relational and structural contexts in which they are embedded.Impact summarya. Prior State of Knowledge: Summarize what is known about the topic.Early media research was guided by unidirectional models where mainly parental influence on children was considered. Such research treated parents as agents in media decisions in the family but considered children largely as recipients and outcomes of parental choices.b. Novel Contributions: Summarize the primary contributions the findings make to the field.This paper illustrates the novel lens of utilizing a relational perspective of the children’s agency which adds a nuanced understanding of the ways in which children in low-income contexts, navigate personal desires for mobile device and family needs.c. Practical Implications:The expression of the agency of children from low-income homes warrants researchers and practitioners’ attention because children actively contribute to family resilience and the well-being of family members.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".