MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976720291 · doi:10.1177/0165025414557370

Parenting and preschoolers’ executive functioning

2014· article· en· W1976720291 on OpenAlexaff
Émilie Rochette, Annie Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperamentPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyModerationImpulse (physics)Child developmentSelf-controlParenting stylesPersonalitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing body of theoretical and empirical work has been attempting to answer the questions of how and how much of the effects of children’s early experience may depend on their inner characteristics. Theory and evidence suggest that some children, notably those with difficult temperaments, are more susceptible to both negative and positive aspects of parenting. The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether child temperament moderated the links between the quality of mother-infant interactions, observed when children were 1 year of age, and two components of child executive functioning (EF) at 3 years, namely impulse control and conflict EF, among 74 mother–child dyads. The results were consistent with the notion that children with more difficult temperaments may be more susceptible to maternal behaviors than children with less difficult temperaments, but only regarding the development of impulse control abilities. There was no clear evidence of such moderation for conflict EF. These results support the idea that distinct mechanisms may underlie the development of different dimensions of child EF.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207