MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A new typology of fathering: defining and associated variables

2000· article· en· W1979469520 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Paquette, Christine Bolt�, Genevi�ve Turcotte, Diane Dubeau, Camil Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant and Child Development · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisRéseau Technoscience
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our goal was to identify different types of parenting based on self-report measures of fathers' involvement and parental attitudes. The present investigation studied 468 two-parent, French Canadian families with at least one child between 0 and 6 years of age, living in a disadvantaged environment. The study, conducted on a sample of fathers, revealed the presence of the three basic types of parenting identified by Baumrind (authoritarian, authoritative and permissive), and also of a new type of parenting (stimulative parenting). The fathers in this latter group provide more emotional support to children and are more stimulating, as is evidenced by the greater psychological presence of children in the father's cognitions and by the fact that they more frequently introduce their children to new activities. These fathers are characterized by more secure social relationships. The father's parental stress level was found to be the most important variable discriminating between different types of fathering. Authoritarian and authoritative fathers are more at risk of maltreating their children because their more favourable attitude towards the use of physical punishment is combined with greater parental stress, less parental involvement of mothers, and a larger number of children in the home. Authoritarian fathers are even more at risk of maltreating their children because of more difficult family socioeconomic conditions, particularly lower levels of maternal education and income. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations114
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfant and Child DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207