Exploring A Design Space for Digital Interventions Facilitating Early Adolescents’ Tech Disengagement: A Parent-Child Perspective
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
Children's excessive technology use remains a significant challenge for parents, especially with early adolescents, given their growing independence and resistance towards parent-set device restrictions. Despite numerous parental control tools, there is limited research on tailored solutions for this age group. This paper advances this design problem by introducing and studying a child-centric design space for digital interventions targeting early adolescents’ technology overuse. Synthesizing literature on mediation strategies, early adolescents’ perspectives, and self-regulation, we first identify four pertinent design dimensions (early adolescents’ agency, supportive parental engagement, mentorship style, and motivation). Using these dimensions, we then create three contrastive design concepts as video prototypes. Utilizing the prototypes in an online study with 13 early adolescents (ages 11-14) and their parents, we provide insights into how both groups conceptualize effective digital interventions. Our findings highlight areas of consensus (e.g., granting early adolescents’ agency) as well as considerable variability (e.g., differing preferred mentorship approaches).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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