MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Parenting practices and their relevance to child behaviors in Canada and China

2010· article· en· W2042714125 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mowei Liu, Feng Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)PsychologyChinaHuman factors and ergonomicsDevelopmental psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlSocial psychologyMedical emergencyPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have revealed that parents in different cultures endorse different child-rearing practices. Studies in the West suggest that there is a cluster of behavioral characteristics in children that are linked with each type of parenting styles. Mixed results, however, were found in non-Western countries. This study examined (1) parenting practices in Canadian and Chinese mothers, and (2) the relevance between parenting practices and child behaviors in Canada and China. Forty Canadian children (average age = 5.40) and 39 Chinese children (average age = 4.84) and their mothers participated in the study. Information on maternal authoritative and authoritarian behaviors and children's behaviors, including coercive request, polite request, and assertiveness, was obtained from observations of mother-child interactions in a laboratory situation. The results indicated that Chinese mothers were less authoritative and more authoritarian than Canadian mothers. Both cross-cultural differences and similarities were found on the associations between maternal parenting practices and child behaviors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations85
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207