PARENTS’ ATTITUDE TO TOYS CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET
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. These include toys connected to the internet called IoToys (Internet of Toys). It is critical to understand how children interact with digital toys, and to assess the risks and opportunities they bring to children's development. This report focuses on some preliminary results of the research project “Toys connected to the Internet: studying the risks and opportunities for child development", conducted by the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Contemporary Childhood of MSUPE in 2021-2022. The task of the first stage of the study was to analyze the position of parents in relation to IoToys. The research group analyzed 300 reviews of parents who bought their children a toy connected to the internet (Smart Bear) on the sites of online stores. The data testified that, despite product recommendations, parents tended to buy the toy for children of younger ages. As positive characteristics, most parents identified the external signs of the toy (image, voice), rather than its digital characteristics. Of all the functions presented, entertainment content (listening to fairy tales, songs) and reminders were mainly used. The least popular was educational content. Half of the parents who spoke about the child's attitude toward the toy noted that the child perceived it as a friend. At the same time, a quarter reported that the child was afraid of the toy because it behaves like a living creature. The obtained data revealed parents’ insufficient awareness about the internet toy , its functions, possibilities, and risks of use. Further research is needed to determine the role of the adult as a facilitator when playing with a digital toy
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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