How can digital citizen science approaches improve ethical smartphone use surveillance among youth: traditional surveys versus ecological momentary assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Ubiquitous use of smartphones among youth poses significant challenges related to non-communicable diseases, including poor mental health. Although traditional survey measures can be used to assess smartphone use among youth, they are subject to recall bias. This study aims to compare self-reported smartphone use via retrospective modified traditional recall survey and prospective Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMAs) among youth. Methods This study uses data from the Smart Platform, which engages with youth as citizen scientists. Youth (N=436) aged 13-21 years in two urban jurisdictions in Canada (Regina and Saskatoon) engaged with our research team using a custom-built application via their own smartphones to report on a range of behaviours and outcomes on eight consecutive days. Youth reported smartphone use utilizing a traditional validated measure, which was modified to capture retrospective smartphone use on both weekdays and weekend days. In addition, daily EMAs were also time-triggered over a period of eight days to capture prospective smartphone use. Demographic, behavioural, and contextual factors were also collected. Data analyses included t-test and linear regression using SPSS statistical software. Results There was a significant difference between weekdays, weekends and overall smartphone use reported retrospectively and prospectively (p-value= <0.001), with youth reporting less smartphone use via EMAs. Overall retrospective smartphone use was significantly associated with not having a part-time job (β=0.342, 95%[CI]=0.146-1.038, p-value =0.010) and participating in a school sports team (β=0.269, 95%[CI]= 0.075-0.814, p-value=0.019). However, prospective smartphone use reported via EMAs was not associated with any behavioural and contextual factors. Conclusion The findings of this study have implications for appropriately understanding and monitoring smartphone use in the digital age among youth. EMAs can potentially minimize recall bias of smartphone use among youth, and other behaviours. More importantly, digital citizen science approaches that engage large populations of youth using their own smartphones can transform how we ethically monitor and mitigate the impact of excessive smartphone use. Author Summary Use of ubiquitous digital devices, particularly smartphones, has experienced an exponential increase among youth, a phenomenon that continues to influence youth health. Although retrospective measures have been used to understand smartphone use among youth, they are prone to measurement and compliance biases. There has been a growing interest in using ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) to assess smartphone to minimize biases associated with retrospective measures. This study uses the smart framework, which integrates citizen science, community based participatory research and systems science to ethically engage with youth citizen scientists using their own smartphones to understand smartphone use behaviours – reported by the same cohort of youth using both retrospective and prospective measures. The findings show a significant difference between smartphone use reported through retrospective and prospective EMAs, with youth reporting more smartphone use via retrospective measures. Furthermore, there were differences in contextual and behavioural factors that were associated with smartphone use reported via retrospective and prospective measures. The findings have implications for appropriately understanding and monitoring smartphone use in the digital age among youth. More importantly, digital citizen science approaches that engage large populations of youth using their own smartphones can transform how we ethically monitor and mitigate the impact of excessive smartphone use.
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 | 0.043 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".