Profiles of Maternal Parenting Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have often linked parenting to children's subsequent antisocial behavior; however, the circumstances under which this might occur are less clear. The current study explores patterns in mothers' parenting practices, and associated correlates including maternal delinquency and offending, mental health, and children's physical aggression. This study is based on the first wave of the ongoing Vancouver Longitudinal Study; the objective of this prospective study is to identify the early risk and protective factors for aggression and violence from the earliest developmental periods. Parenting practices of 287 mothers with preschoolers are examined using a series of latent class analyses. Three different patterns of parenting emerged: Positive, Negative, and Intermittent. Patterns identified are associated with several key criminogenic, socio-demographic, historical, and developmental factors including current maternal adult offending, mothers' mental health, ethnicity, and frequency of children's physical aggression. Importantly, mothers who show parenting in line with the more negative classes also rely on a number of positive practices. Implications of the study suggest that parenting is influenced by mothers' immediate situations and contexts (e.g., current offending rather that past delinquency), which can be targeted for intervention.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".