Daily Life Activities of Children during the Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this descriptive study was to examine the views of parents with children between the ages of 3-6 on their children's daily life activities during the pandemic. The study sample was composed of 65 parents, among whom 60 were mothers, and five were fathers, who were selected with the snowball method and who had children between the ages of 3-6 and voluntarily participated in the study. The data were collected through the General Information Form and the Family Interview Form, which were developed in line with expert opinions. The collected data were analyzed using percentage and frequency values. The findings suggested that, during the pandemic, the children's family relationships were positively affected; the duration of using technological tools increased; the children started to wash their hands more carefully; and duration of activities, such as drawing and chores, and plays increased. It was also found that the children mostly preferred piece assembly games; their physical movement needs were not fully satisfied; and there was no change in their health conditions, self-care skills, diet, sleep patterns, interactive book reading, and purposes of using technology. In line with the findings, parents, experts were given specific recommendations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".