“What educators, parents and policy officials really needed was high quality data and evidence to help guide them. What they have had to deal with instead is some substandard research.”
    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish
      3·
      1 month ago

      The Lancet took 12 years to retract the Wakefield paper. Those cunts have done more harm than any disease.

      Shut them all down. Private publishing on the model set forth by Ghislaine Maxwell’s father has been a complete fail. There needs to be one central, open resource with transparent peer review.

  • brendansimms@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 month ago

    With this and the multiple recent accounts of publications with clearly[poorly] AI written text/images, Nature is losing its status

  • Paragone@lemmy.worldEnglish
    314·
    1 month ago

    Damage has been done:

    They’'re lobbying to enforce “AI-literacy”, now, obliterating the learning of critical-thinking in kids, just globally-displacing-it with abdication-of-thinking, for their intended totalitarian-dominion.

    MAKE ALL SCHOOL-BOARDS KNOW THAT THIS WAS RETRACTED, & WHY!!

    Make the research showing that 2/3 of a standard-deviation of REDUCTION in cognitive-performance is pruduced by 5h/day of screentime in kids!!

    I asked an LLM for help finding the key paper…

    Q: Can you please find me the web-address of the paper which identified that 5h of screen-time reduces kids’ cognitive-performance by 2/3rds of a standard-deviation?

    The paper you are looking for is titled “Associations between 24 hour movement behaviours and global cognition in US children: a cross-sectional observational study,” published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health in September 2018.

    The study, led by Jeremy J. Walsh and colleagues, analyzed data from the ABCD Study (Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development), involving 4,520 children aged 8–11 years.

    Key Finding and Statistics

    The researchers evaluated how meeting three specific health recommendations (sleep, exercise, and screen time) impacted cognitive performance. While they found a general decline in performance as screen time increased, the “2/3 of a standard deviation” figure specifically relates to the difference between children meeting all three guidelines and those meeting none:

    • The Comparison: Children who met all three guidelines (9–11 hours of sleep, <= 2 hours of screen time, and >= 60 mins of physical activity) had significantly higher global cognition scores than those who met none.
    • The Delta: The difference in global cognition between these two groups was approximately 0.65 (roughly 2/3) of a standard deviation.
    • 5-Hour Specificity: The study noted that the average screen time was 3.6 hours, but for children reaching high levels of consumption (such as 5+ hours), the cognitive deficit was most pronounced when compared to the baseline of children meeting the 2-hour recommendation.

    That actual-paper that the LLM helped me find, is https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k4070

      • Paragone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        20 days ago

        They’re tools.

        Not perfect, but one hell of alot better than regular-search, much of the time.

        Feel free to downvote everything I ever say ( or have an LLM do it, if you want ), if that validity-isn’t-collective-it-is-individual-content preference-of-granularity.

        ( same as with humans: anybody who says they’re inherently-right because they’re zionist/christofascist/islamist/fascist can go eat rocks:

        validity is of individual-uprightness, not “inherent” on one’s “group-membership”.

        Some individuals are monsters, some saints, but all humans are humans, & the granularity-of-judging has to be fine )

        _ /\ _

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        15·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, but honestly Google search is crap these days. I use DDG but it’s not a lot better.