Perception and Use of Video by Today’s Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the success of Skype, YouTube, Google and Yahoo Video, videoconferencing and online video are becoming ubiquitous means of communication. Youth are often perceived as the “digital generation”; as a result scholars pay greater attention to technology use in adult populations (Jenkins, 2004; Livingston & Helsper, 2007). Few studies examine how youth actually engage with video technology in everyday life to communicate with friends and family. This study examines how youth (ages 15-18) currently perceive and use video as a communication tool. Method: This study analyzes the results of surveys and focus groups conducted with Canadian high school students taking part in two separate Virtual Classroom sessions. Data related to their perception and use of video communication technologies in everyday life were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Results: The analyses indicate that although video and videoconferencing were not frequently used in everyday communications, youth perceived video as a useful means of communication. In the focus groups, participants discussed watching online video and selectively using videoconferencing to communicate with close friends and family members located at a distance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".