Co-Designing with Early Adolescents: Understanding Perceptions of and Design Considerations for Tech-Based Mediation Strategies that Promote Technology Disengagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's excessive use of technology is a growing concern, and despite taking various measures, parents often find it difficult to limit their children's device use. Limiting tech usage can be especially challenging with early adolescents as they start to develop a sense of autonomy. While numerous tech-based mediation solutions exist, in this paper, we aim to learn from early adolescents directly by having them contribute to co-design activities. Through a multi-session, group-based, online co-design study with 21 early adolescents (ages 11-14), we explore their perceptions towards tech overuse and what types of solutions they propose to help with disengagement. Findings from these co-design sessions contribute insights into how the participants conceptualized the problem of tech overuse, how they envisioned appropriate mediation strategies, and important design considerations. We also reflect on our study methods, which encouraged active participation from our participants and facilitated valuable contributions during the online co-design sessions.
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 | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".