The influences of technology on adolescent social and interpersonal development: a school-based, interdisciplinary team perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lives of many adolescents in Canada are consumed by technology. The adolescent\npopulation are among the most prolific users of technology and have an intrinsic understanding\nof the ways around technology that escapes most adults (Shifflet, 2013). Current research is\nsomewhat contradictory as to whether technology has a harmful, helpful or neutral impact on\nadolescents (Barth, 2015, Fairlie & Kalil, 2017). Concerns over the perceived negative impacts\nof technology on social, emotional and relational development of adolescents are prevalent but\nlargely uninformed by plausible, causal evidence (Fairlie & Kalil, 2017, Shifflet, 2013, Lotrean,\net al., 2016, Scott, et al., 2017). This paper consists of a research study that investigates\nadolescent technology use and its influences on social and interpersonal development, from the\nperspectives of a school-based interdisciplinary team. This study was based on qualitative\ninterviews with five, school-based interdisciplinary team members who have been working with\na recently implemented technology-based learning program. The participants identified that\ntechnology has influenced teacher/student relationships, peer relationships, opportunities to\nconnect and learning with technology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".