MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Empowering Families in Hands‐on Science Programs

2000· article· en· W2044827024 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

VenueSchool Science and Mathematics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)AttendanceSocioeconomic statusEthnic groupPsychologyScience educationMathematics educationAssociation (psychology)Resource (disambiguation)Medical educationDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceDemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parental involvement in schools has been documented as a positive influence on children's achievement, attendance, attitudes, behavior, and graduation rate, regardless of cultural background, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status ( National Parents and Teachers Association, 1998 ). Unfortunately, it has been difficult in today's world of working parents to get them actively involved in science, mathematics, and technology programs and to maintain this involvement in upper‐elementary and secondary schools. This study reports on the Science: Parents, Activities, and Literature project's attempt to get parents productively involved in their children's hands‐on science program. The results illustrate that (a) parents will become involved and they find their involvement a positive experience, (b) teachers appreciate parents' contributions as an instructional resource, and (c) students perceive the increased parental involvement positively.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.335 · 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