Left to Their Own Devices: Digital Media use among Youth in Residential Treatment an Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Three individual but related qualitative studies, explore the phenomenon of digital media use among youth within residential mental health treatment settings, from the vantage point of both the youth (n=15) and the service providers (n=25) who support them. Method: McCracken’s Long Interview Method was utilized to conduct and analyze in-depth interviews for each of the three papers. The goal of this research is to contribute a rich understanding of the experiences of youth digital media use within residential treatment RT settings from both youth in RT and the service providers supporting them. Results: Findings are organized within three distinct papers The first paper, “Double-edged sword” of digital media use among youth in residential treatment: Perspectives of service providers” focuses on the complex interplay of factors that influence how service providers from four different RTs in southern Ontario Canada contend with youth digital media use in RTs. The second paper “Digital pathways to wellness among youth in RT” is a youth centered, developmentally informed, study that attends to the gap in the literature addressing the digital media use experiences among youth in residential treatment (RT). The third paper, “Digital Media Use in Residential Treatment: Anxiety, Adaptation, and the Role of Relationship between Youth and Service providers” explores the shared experiences of youth and service providers navigating digital media use in RT. Collective recommendations are drawn from the findings of paper three, offering a relationally grounded understanding of how youth and service providers contend with their respective positions on the role of digital media use in the lives of youth, and the anxiety generated by changes in digital media access in RT settings. Implications: The dissertation’s findings provide pathways forward to inform practice, research, and policy related to supporting and addressing digital media use among youth within residential treatment settings and those requiring intensive mental health supports.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".