MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376645325 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxac125

Screen time and preschool children: Promoting health and development in a digital world

2023· review· en· W4376645325 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsScreen timeEarly childhoodPsychosocialPsychologyChild developmentBest practiceDevelopmentally Appropriate PracticeHealth carePandemicMedicineHealth professionalsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Developmental psychologyMedical educationNursingPhysical activityEarly childhood educationPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

COVID-19 transformed the family media environment and spurred research on the effects of screen media exposure and use on young children. This update of a 2017 CPS statement re-examines the potential benefits and risks of screen media in children younger than 5 years, with focus on developmental, psychosocial, and physical health. Four evidence-based principles-minimizing, mitigating, mindfully using, and modelling healthy use of screens-continue to guide children's early experience with a rapidly changing media landscape. Knowing how young children learn and develop informs best practice for health care providers and early years professionals (e.g., early childhood educators, child care providers). Anticipatory guidance should now include child and family screen use in (and beyond) pandemic 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it