MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low‐income Canadian Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal parent–child interactions

2005· article· en· W2080912603 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Letourneau, Krista Hungler, K. John Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow incomePsychologyDemographic economicsDevelopmental psychologyGeographySociologySocioeconomicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Limited research is available on the performance of North American Aboriginal(1) people on the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scales (NCATS) and available research examines parent-child interactions within Aboriginal samples drawn from the USA. Most published normative data on low-income people's performance on the NCATS are also limited to samples drawn from the USA. The purpose of this research study was to use the NCATS measure to: (1) begin to develop a knowledge base that describes the parent-child interactions observed in Canadian low-income samples; and (2) explore the relationship between parent-infant interactions and ethnicity (Aboriginal or Non-Aboriginal) within a low-income Canadian sample. METHODS: Secondary analysis was completed on data collected as part of a larger study designed to examine the impact of low-income situations on pre-school children's health and development in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The NCATS measure of parent-child interaction was administered to all children (1-36 months old) and their parents in the low-income non-probability sample. The sample derived for secondary analysis consists of 12 Aboriginal parent-child pairs (11 mothers and 1 father) and 48 Non-Aboriginal parent-child pairs (47 mothers and 1 father). RESULTS: The data analysis suggests that although low-income Aboriginal parents may be less verbal with their children in interactions, the overall interaction quality is not different from that of other low-income parents. However, both groups' parent-child interaction scores were less than the published 10th percentile cut-off score, indicating 'worrisome scores' and less than optimal interactions. CONCLUSION: While the findings that compare the Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal samples are limited by the small sample size, the fact that these findings agree with those from heterogeneous Aboriginal samples drawn from the USA are encouraging. Finally, the findings provide needed information about parent-child interactions in Canadian low-income urban samples including data from Aboriginal parents and children.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207