COVID information and masking behaviors in U.S. adolescents: Findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to health misinformation and are at risk for suboptimal adherence to protective health behaviors in the COVID-19 pandemic. Guided by factors consistent with the theories of planned behavior and rumor transmission, this study sought to analyze the impact of multiple information sources, including social media, television media, internet and parental counseling, on masking behaviors in adolescents. Responses from the December 2020 COVID-19 survey, representing 4,106 U.S. adolescents ages 12-14 from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD) were analyzed. The majority of parents (61.1%) reported counseling their children on the importance of wearing masks all the time in the past week. A minority of adolescents reported more than one hour of daily exposure to COVID-19 related information on social media (9.1%), the internet (4.3%) and television (10.2%). In unadjusted and adjusted models, greater frequency of parental counseling and exposure to COVID-19 television or social media were associated with 'always masking' behaviors. Our findings provide support for the importance of parent counseling and suggest that socialmedia and television may overall support rather than dissuade protective COVID-19 health behaviors in adolescents.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".