MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409263750 · doi:10.29173/cjfy30136

Room to Grow? The Role of Adolescents’ Bedrooms During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2025· article· en· W4409263750 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Heather L. Ramey, Heather L. Lawford, Yana Berardini

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaBishop's UniversityTrent UniversityUNICEF
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyMedicineOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescents spend increasing amounts of time alone in their bedrooms, a shift which likely intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Past research has pointed to potential developmental reasons, benefits (e.g., increasing autonomy), and risks (e.g., social isolation, greater screen time) of high amounts of time alone. We explored adolescents’ experiences of their bedrooms during pandemic restrictions, as a potentially unique developmental context. We conducted 10 focus groups and 23 interviews with 74 young people, ages 10 to 19 (46% girls/women; 49% boys/men; 6% gender neutral/gender fluid/agender; 16% LGBTQ+; 5% Indigenous; 35% persons of colour; 7% persons with a disability). Middle to late adolescents, in particular, described their bedrooms as relevant to their developmental needs for autonomy and independence. Further, they underlined the emotional complexity surrounding bedrooms, such as feeling both trapped and seeking comfort and relaxation. Findings suggest the importance of time alone, and also strategies and discussion points for youth and parents.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la JeunesseSame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207