MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092675953 · doi:10.1177/0192513x15584679

“It’s Good for the Kids”: Fathers Consider Risk and Protection in Their Own and Their Children’s Lives

2015· article· en· W2092675953 on OpenAlexaffabout
Genevieve Creighton, Mariana Brussoni, John L. Oliffe, Lise Olsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Context (archaeology)Identity (music)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyHealth promotionQualitative researchSocial psychologySociologyPublic healthMedicineNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a qualitative inquiry to better understand how fathers of young children consider risk in their own life and in the lives of their 2- to 7-year-olds. Interview data were collected from 64 fathers from rural and urban Canada. Fathers’ discourse was considered in the context of masculine identities as well as the implications for father-focused health promotion and safety education. We found that most fathers considered risk taking to be an essential component of their own and their fathering identities. Some fathers held negative views about risk taking in their own and their children’s lives or were inconsistent in risk considerations for themselves compared to their children. For these fathers, identity construction was a somewhat fluid and contradictory process. Overall, we conclude that health promotion programs should support and bolster fathering identities and practices that involve engaging children in physical risk taking while employing appropriate safety strategies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207