MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404239927 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000448

How can digital citizen science approaches improve ethical smartphone use surveillance among youth: Traditional surveys versus ecological momentary assessments

2024· article· en· W4404239927 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanada Research ChairsSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsCitizen scienceSmartphone appSmartphone applicationEcologyPsychologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeographyEnvironmental scienceInternet privacyComputer scienceMultimediaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. This study uses data from the Smart Platform, which engages with youth as citizen scientists. Youth (N = 77) 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 Python statistical software. 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 = 139.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 34.759, 244.519, p-value = 0.010) and having more than two friends who are physically active (β = -114.72, 95%[CI] = -208.872, -20.569, p-value = 0.018). However, prospective smartphone use reported via EMAs was not associated with any behavioural and contextual factors. 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 such as physical activity. 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.

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), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.139 · 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