Effect of Using Smart Mobile Device on Child Prosocial and Difficult Behaviors in School Age; Parents’ Perception
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
Background: The time that children spend using digital devices is increasing rapidly with the developmentof new portable and instantly accessible technology. Mobile devices are embedded in and dominate the dailylives of young children. Research Aims: assess the effect of using smart mobile device on child Prosocialand difficult behaviors in school age. Methodology: A cross sectional research design was utilized at August2019 - January 2020. Convenience sample include the 400 school children. An online survey by usingGoogle form, which contains three parts (characteristics of parents, children and Strengths and DifficultiesQuestionnaire). Results: revealed that47.2% and 47.7% of studied children had abnormal emotionalsymptoms and conduct problems. In addition (34.5%) of studied children was normal related peer problemsdomain. Also, (51.2%) of them was abnormal related hyperactivity. While, (30%) of studied children hadnormal Prosocial behavior. Conclusions: the current study concluded that about half of studied children hadabnormal Prosocial and difficult behaviors and less than one quarter of them had borderline Prosocial anddifficult behaviors. While, less than one third of them had normal Prosocial and difficult behaviors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 it