Household Ecology and Recovery Among Young Adults: Digital Device Use as a Mixed Advantage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT People are increasingly spending time on digital devices, but contradictory evidence exists regarding the effect of screen time on well‐being. Instead of focusing on the focal effect of screen time, we propose that time spent on digital devices may interact with other factors in predicting resource recovery outcomes—the time on digital devices itself could be a distraction that separates people from their family and household roles and obligations and thus may attenuate or amplify the negative relationship between hostile household ecology and resource recovery. In one archival study based on the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) and two daily diary studies of young adults, we found a consistent pattern that the effect of hostile household ecology (e.g., large family size and high levels of home chaos) on recovery‐related outcomes was smaller when screen time was higher, depending on the digital device involved. This finding points to a new perspective on screen time for recovering from household demands and can shed light on the way people cope with a variety of stressors and working from home. Please refer to the Supporting Information section to find this article's .
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".