Reducing harm and promoting positive media use strategies: new perspectives in understanding the impact of preschooler media use on health and development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most children grow up in homes with easy access to multiple screens. Screen use by children between the ages of 0 to 5 has become a worldwide preoccupation. In the present narrative review, we examine child and parent screen use and its contribution to physical, cognitive, and social developmental outcomes. As research has mostly focused on the adverse consequences of screen media, we aim to depict both the negative and the positive influences of screen usage. To provide a more nuanced portrait of the potential benefits and harms of screen use, we examine how consequences of media use vary according to the content of media (ex., educational, violent), context (ex., using screens during mealtimes), and the nature (ex., passive vs active use) of child screen use. Our review supports existing screen time guidelines and recommendations and suggests that media content, the context of use, and the nature of child use, as well as the parent's own screen use, be considered clinically. Future research should seek to clarify how these dimensions jointly contribute to child screen use profiles and associated consequences. Finally, child sex, behavioral/temperamental difficulties, and family adversity appear to contribute to child screen use and its consequences and should be considered in future research. Suggestions for harm-reduction approaches are discussed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it