Neighborhood Social Capital, Parenting Strain, and Personal Mastery among Female Primary Caregivers of Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neighborhood social capital-resources inherent within community networks-has been identified as a potential facilitator of personal well-being. We test hypotheses concerning how neighborhood social capital moderates the influence of parenting strain on mastery (individuals' understanding of their ability to control personal life circumstances) for female primary caregivers of children. First, we test how different forms of neighborhood social capital-social support, social leverage (information exchange), informal social control, and neighborhood organization participation-modify the association between parenting strain and mastery. Second, we test whether such moderation depends on one's access to these forms via neighbor ties. Analyses of Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey data (N = 765) indicate that the negative relationship between parenting strain and mastery worsens as informal social control increases. Social support and informal social control, however, buffer this parenting strain-mastery relationship when caregivers have stronger ties to neighbors. Our findings implicate mechanisms of "negative social capital" and warrant more nuanced considerations of neighborhood social capital's health-promoting potential.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".