Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bookreading has proven to be beneficial for children’s language and literacy development (e.g. Bus, Van Ijzendoorn and Pellegrini, 1995; Fletcher and Reese, 2005; Mol and Bus, 2011a). Families in Western countries are often advised to read to their young children, and many parents appear to be aware of the positive effects of bookreading. However, little is known about bookreading patterns among families in the Netherlands. In this study, we analysed the bookreading behaviours of 464 parents with children aged 0–12 residing in the Netherlands, as well as the reading behaviours of 275 children aged 8–12 years. The results demonstrate that 60% of parents read daily to their children. Parental education was significantly related to bookreading frequency but home language was not. Fathers were the primary reader in only 8% of families compared to 65% for mothers. Parents did not read for long periods of time: 40% of parents reported reading between 5 and 10 minutes and another 40% read from 10 to 15 minutes. Almost half of the children in this study reported reading at least once a day and a quarter read between 15 and 20 minutes a day. This study provides more insights into bookreading patterns among Dutch families. Although many families already report reading to their children, there is still room for improvement regarding the length of reading and paternal bookreading.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".