Do parent media habits contribute to child global development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/objective Parents of preschoolers’ report using screen media frequently. More frequent screen use by parents may undermine child development by displacing time for foundational parent-child interactions. The objective of the present study is to examine the extent to which parent screen use contributes to child global development 1 year later. Methods Data are from a cohort of 315 preschoolers from Nova Scotia, Canada and their parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Parents reported the number of hours per day they spent using screens, as well as child screen time and sex, and parent educational attainment. Our outcome is child global development scores, which combine assessments of communication, cognitive, personal-social, and motor skills measured at 4.5 using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) (N = 249, 79% retained). Results Parents in our sample spent on average 6.35 h per day using screen media outside of work (SD = 3.07) and children spent on average 3.43 h per/day using screens. Multivariate linear regression indicated that each 1-h increase in parents daily screen media use, corresponded to a 1.25 decrease in child global development scores, B = −1.25 p < 0.05, 95% CI between −2.37 and −0.13. Conclusion Our results indicate that parent screen use may represent a key component of children’s media ecology. Given the importance of global development in early childhood for later health and achievement, the present results suggest that interventions should include parent screen use habits in media wellness interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".