Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social cognitive theorists have studied parenting cognitions that include perspective-taking ability, socialization goals, and attributions made for actions of the self and of the child. These are described, with a focus on their links to parenting actions and child outcomes. The distinction between controlled and automatic cognition and its role in parenting cognitions is discussed, with the former involving movement between the mobilization and minimization of cognitive activity regarding parent–child interactions. It is argued that inappropriate reliance on mobilization or minimization leads to difficulties in information-processing and emotion regulation which result in maladaptive parenting behavior. Finally, similarities and differences between social cognitive and attachment approaches to mental representations of parenting are discussed. Cognitive constructs have played a prominent role in attempts to understand the impact of parenting on children's social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes. For many years, childrearing attitudes – cognitive events that predispose the individual to act either positively or negatively toward their object – were the dominant focus of researchers and theorists. Indeed, attitudes were assumed to be the preeminent parenting construct (Holden & Buck, 2002) because they were considered to be good predictors of parenting behavior, markers of the emotional climate parents provided to their children, and, therefore, seen to have a major impact on children's development. Psychoanalysts (e.g., Horney, 1933) argued that parenting behavior was determined by unconscious emotional reactions parents had to the way they themselves had been parented, with these unconscious reactions having an effect on their own, conscious, attitudes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".