Information and communication technology use among children separated from one or both parents: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The development and diversification of information and communication technology (ICT) are changing the way family members communicate with each other, creating new opportunities for interaction. When children and parents do not live together on a day‐to‐day basis, these technologies may represent privileged means to keep in touch and maintain a relationship. Objective This article aims to review the literature on the use of ICT among children separated from one or both parents, paying particular attention to two contexts: parental separation and foster care. Method A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018). The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Of the 847 references identified, 11 were selected (six related to parental separation and five related to foster care). The literature dated from 1997 to 2020 and was particularly sparse and heterogeneous (e.g., the definition of ICT and characteristics of participants). Three topics emerged: (a) ICT practices and usage patterns, (b) ICT practices: opportunities and issues, and (c) sociolegal support issues. Implication This study highlights the need for all legal and psychosocial actors to consider the place of digital technology in family relationships.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".