Aboriginal Status and Neighborhood Income Inequality Moderate the Relationship between School Absenteeism and Early Childhood Development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The negative impact of school absenteeism on children's academic performance has been documented in the educational literature, yet few studies have used validated development indicators, or investigated individual and neighborhood characteristics to illuminate potential moderating factors. Using cross-sectional Early Development Instrument (EDI) panel data (2001-2005) we constructed multilevel linear and logistic regression models to examine the association between school absenteeism and early childhood development, moderated by Aboriginal status, length of school absence, neighborhood-level income inequality, and children's sex assigned at birth. Our study included 3572 children aged four to eight in 56 residential neighborhoods in Saskatoon, Canada. Results indicated that Aboriginal children missing an average number of school days (3.63 days) had significantly lower EDI scores compared to non-Aboriginal children, controlling for individual and neighborhood factors. As school absenteeism lengthened, the gap in EDI scores between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children narrowed, becoming non-significant for absences greater than two weeks. Children with long-term school absence (>4 weeks of school), living in neighborhoods of low income inequality, had significantly better physical and social development scores compared to children from medium or high income inequality neighborhoods. Across all EDI domains, girls living in neighborhoods with low income inequality had significantly better EDI scores than boys in similar neighborhoods; however, sex-differences in EDI scores were not apparent for children residing in high income inequality neighborhoods. Results add to the literature by demonstrating differences in the relationship between school absenteeism and early developmental outcomes moderated by Aboriginal status, length of school absence, neighborhood income inequality, and sex assigned at birth. These moderating factors show that differential approaches are necessary when implementing policies and programs aimed at improving school attendance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».