“Keeping Young Minds Sharp”: Children's Cognitive Stimulation and the Rise of Parenting Magazines, 1959–2003*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, l'auteure etudie l'éthos changeant du métier de parent en se fondant sur l'examen des magazines et des articles sur l'art d'être parent. La diversification et l'augmentation substantielle du nombre de magazines sur l'éducation des enfants dans quatre pays industrialisés d'expression anglaise démontrent une grande préoccupation par rapport à l'« art d'etre parent » en tant qu'entreprise intentionnelle. Une analyse de contenu de plus de 500 articles canadiens sur le sujet révèle un déplacement de l'importance placée sur les activités d'« amusement » vers un intérêt croissant pour l'education et le développement cognitif des enfants. En accord avec ceux et celles qui observent au fil du temps un souci accru concernant le développement cognitif des enfants, l'auteure pense que les parents canadiens sont de plus en plus encouragés à favoriser activement les aptitudes aux études de leurs enfants. This study is an exploration of the changing ethos of parenting based on an examination of parenting magazines and articles. The substantial growth and diversification of parenting magazines in four English‐speaking industrialized countries indicate a larger preoccupation about “parenting” as a deliberate undertaking. A content analysis of more than 500 Canadian parenting articles reveals a shift in emphasis from “fun” activities to an increasing focus on schooling and children's cognitive development. Consistent with others who document a heightened concern for children's cognitive development over time, I find that Canadian parents are increasingly encouraged to actively foster their children's academic skills.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".