Parent-Adolescent Discrepancies in Adolescent Recreational Screen Time Reporting During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the relationship between parent and adolescent reports of adolescent recreational screen time and to determine sociodemographic predictors of recreational screen time reporting differences during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (N = 5335, ages 10-14) a national prospective cohort study in the United States collected in May 2020. We compared parent-reported, adolescent-reported, and a parent-adolescent differences in recreational screen time hours per day across 5 screen categories. RESULTS: Adolescents' total recreational screen time per day was reported as 4.46 hours by parents and 3.87 hours by adolescents. Parents reported higher levels of their child's texting, video chatting, and total recreational screen time, while adolescents reported higher multiplayer gaming and social media use. Larger discrepancies in total recreational screen time were found in older, Black, and Latino/Hispanic adolescents. Larger discrepancies in total recreational screen time were also found among unmarried/unpartnered parents. CONCLUSIONS: Given discrepancies in parent-adolescent recreational screen time reporting during the pandemic, a period of high screen use, pediatricians should encourage family discussions about adolescent media use through the development of a Family Media Use Plan. The digital media industry could provide more opportunities for parental monitoring of recreational screen time within product designs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".