MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976289360 · doi:10.1080/07317101003776423

Assessing Parenting Behaviors in Euro–Canadian and East Asian Immigrant Mothers: Limitations to Observations of Responsiveness

2010· article· en· W1976289360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathy Chan, Kailee Penner, Janet W. T. Mah, Charlotte Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueChild & Family Behavior Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyImmigrationDevelopmental psychologyObservational studyParenting stylesAffect (linguistics)Cultural influenceEast AsiaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of parenting measures that are developed for use with Western families without testing their validity among families from non-Western cultural backgrounds may not be appropriate. Similar parenting behaviors may affect child outcomes in different ways across different cultures. This study examined the cross-cultural validity of an observational Maternal Responsiveness coding system and of self-reports of lax/inconsistent parenting in Euro–Canadian (n = 23) and East Asian immigrant mothers (n = 23) of 4- to 7-year-old sons. In Euro–Canadian mothers, observed parenting responsiveness was associated with less lax/inconsistent parenting and fewer child behavior problems. In East Asian immigrant mothers, however, observations of greater responsiveness were not related to reports of lax/inconsistent parenting, and were associated with greater child behavior problems. Implications for the use of these parenting measures across culture groups are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild & Family Behavior TherapySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207