MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098598469 · doi:10.1017/jgc.2014.3

Does Gender Moderate the Association Between Children's Behaviour and Teacher-Child Relationship in the Early Years?

2014· article· en· W2098598469 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Runions

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Guidance and Counselling · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersHealth Promotion Agency
KeywordsClosenessPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Developmental psychologyAffect (linguistics)Quality (philosophy)Perception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior research has shown that teacher-child relationship quality predicts school emotional wellbeing and academic engagement, but it is unclear whether the relationship quality reflects teachers’ perceptions of children's social-emotional behaviours differently for girls and for boys. The purpose of this study was to examine whether teachers’ reports of relationship quality were differentially associated with children's behaviours depending on child gender. Teachers provided behavioural reports and ratings of closeness and conflict for children from kindergarten (n= 598), pre-primary (n= 496), and year 1 (n= 451). Of 19 significant associations, only 5 were moderated by gender, including hyperactivity and emotional problems. The findings suggest that, primarily, gender does not moderate how teachers’ perceptions of behaviours correlate with their ratings of relationship quality, but that gender role expectations may affect teacher-child relationship quality in some behavioural domains. Suggestions for counsellors working with teachers are presented that target teacher self-reflection on gender expectations, behavioural expectations and their intersection, to improve teacher-child relationship quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Guidance and CounsellingSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207