Psychosocial Correlates of Recreational Screen Time among Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective was to identify the psychosocial correlates of recreational screen time among adolescents. Data collection took place in four high schools from the Chaudière-Appalaches region (Quebec, Canada) from late April to mid-May 2021. A total of 258 French-speaking adolescents (69.8% between 15 and 16 years and 66.3% girls) answered an online questionnaire based on the Reasoned Action Approach. Recreational screen time was measured using the French version of a validated questionnaire. Adolescents reported a mean of 5 h and 52 min/day of recreational screen time. Recreational screen time was associated with being a boy (β = 0.33; p < 0.0001) and intention to limit recreational screen time to a maximum of 2 h/day (β = −0.15; p = 0.0001); this model explained 30% of the variance in behavior. Intention to limit recreational screen time to a maximum of 2 h/day in the next month was associated with attitude (β = 0.49; p < 0.0001), self-identity (β = 0.33; p < 0.0001), being a boy (β = −0.21; p = 0.0109), perceived behavioral control (β = 0.18; p = 0.0016), and injunctive norm (β = 0.17; p < 0.0001); this model explained 70% of the variance in intention. This study identified avenues to design public health interventions aimed at lowering recreational screen time among this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".