MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Family Ties: Constructing Family Time in Low‐Income Families

2005· article· en· W2031446653 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Process · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentralityPovertyConstruct (python library)WelfareFamily tiesPsychologyMeaning (existential)EthnographyDevelopmental psychologyDemographic economicsSocial psychologyLongitudinal studySociologyEconomic growthEconomicsMedicineGenealogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Family time" is reflected in the process of building and fortifying family relationships. Whereas such time, free of obligatory work, school, and family maintenance activities, is purchased by many families using discretionary income, we explore how low-income mothers make time for and give meaning to focused engagement and relationship development with their children within time constraints idiosyncratic to being poor and relying on welfare. Longitudinal ethnographic data from 61 low-income African American, European American, and Latina American mothers were analyzed to understand how mothers construct family time during daily activities such as talking, play, and meals. We also identify unique cultural factors that shape family time for low-income families, such as changing temporal orientations, centrality of television time, and emotional burdens due to poverty. Implications for family therapy are also 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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