Hyper-parenting is negatively associated with physical activity among 7–12 year olds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore associations between helicopter, little emperor, tiger mom, and concerted cultivation hyper-parenting styles with child physical activity. METHODS: 724 North American parents of 7-12 year olds completed a survey (May, 2014) that assessed their engagement in the hyper-parenting styles and the frequency that their child played outdoors, walked/bicycled, and played organized sports. Z-scores were generated for each hyper-parenting style and four groups were created: low (<-1 SD), below average (-1 to -0.49 SD), average (-0.50 to 0.50 SD), above average (0.51 to 0.1.0 SD), and high (>1 SD). RESULTS: Outdoor play, active transportation, and organized sport did not differ across helicopter parenting groups. Children in the low little emperor group had higher (P<0.005) outdoor play and active transportation scores than children in the average, above average, and high groups (exception: high group for outdoor play). Children in the low tiger mom and concerted cultivation groups had higher (P<0.005) outdoor play, active transportation, and organized sport scores than children in the average, above average, and high groups (exceptions: average and high tiger mom groups for organized sport). CONCLUSIONS: Little emperor, tiger mom, and concerted cultivation parenting styles were associated with lower physical activity among 7-12 year olds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".