MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Longitudinal Study of the Relationship of Maternal Autonomy Support to Children's Adjustment and Achievement in School

2005· article· en· W2035940131 on OpenAlexafffund
Mireille Joussemet, Richard Koestner, Natasha Lekes, Renée Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyAutonomyDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal studyNeed for achievementSocial psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A longitudinal study examined the relations of maternal autonomy support to children's school adjustment. Autonomy support and other parenting dimensions were measured when children were 5 years old. School measures were teacher-rated academic and social adjustment and achievement in reading and math in grade 3. Regression analyses controlling for age 5 family and child factors (e.g., socioeconomic status [SES], kindergarten adjustment, IQ) revealed that autonomy support was positively related to grade 3 adjustment (social and academic) and reading achievement. Maternal emphasis on school performance was positively related to achievement measures but negatively related to social adjustment. Maternal use of rewards and praise was unrelated to grade 3 school measures. Finally, supplemental analyses revealed that autonomy support was associated with greater consistency in children's adjustment across social and academic domains as well as higher overall adjustment. These results highlight the developmental significance of parental autonomy support in early childhood.

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)0.006
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations220
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PersonalitySame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207