Parenting and Screens During Middle Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As their children reach middle childhood (6–12), parents are faced with new media-use challenges driven by their children’s development and growing independence. These youth spend over 5 ½ hours a day on screens, potentially displacing sleep, physical activity, and reading. During this stage, young people’s social lives evolve as the importance of peer interactions grows, their ability to understand the perspectives of other people develops, and their desire for online connection increases. In response, parents seek answers to questions concerning when and how to provide personal access to smartphones and social media. Research evidence supports considering a child’s needs, maturity, and responsibilities instead of only their age when providing them with a phone. Restrictive parental mediation strategies such as delaying access to social media during middle childhood may reduce overall use and limit risk for negative online social experiences, but they are also likely to interfere with the development of online social competencies and positive opportunities afforded by online socialization. A parental mediation approach that combines warmth and support with clear and consistent rules and consequences is likely protective, both against the negative impact of specific media content as well as against problematic media use overall.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".