Using Wearable Cameras to Categorize the Type and Context of Screen-Based Behaviors Among Adolescents: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automated wearable cameras present a new opportunity to accurately assess human behavior. However, this technology is seldom used in the study of adolescent's screen exposure, and the field is reliant on poor-quality self-report data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine adolescents' screen exposure by categorizing the type and context of behaviors using automated wearable cameras. METHODS: Adolescents (mean age 15.4 years, SD 1.6 years; n=10) wore a camera for 3 school evenings and 1 weekend day. The camera captured an image every 10 seconds. Fieldwork was completed between February and March 2020, and data were analyzed in August 2020. Images were date and time stamped, and coded for screen type, content, and context. RESULTS: Data representing 71,396 images were analyzed. Overall, 74.0% (52,842/71,396) of images contained screens and 16.8% (11,976/71,396) of images contained multiple screens. Most screen exposures involved television sets (25,950/71,396, 36.3%), smartphones (20,851/71,396, 29.2%), and laptop computers (15,309/71,396, 21.4%). The context of screen use differed by device type, although most screen exposures occurred at home (62,455/64,856, 96.3%) and with solitary engagement (54,430/64,856, 83.9%). The immediate after-school period saw high laptop computer use (4785/15,950, 30.0%), while smartphone use (2059/5320, 38.7%) peaked during prebedtime hours. Weekend screen exposure was high, with smartphone use (1070/1927, 55.5%) peaking in the early morning period and fluctuating throughout the day. CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence for high screen use during the after-school and weekend period, mostly through solitary engagement, and within the home environment. The findings may inform the basis of larger studies aimed at examining screen exposure in free-living conditions.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".