MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109084139 · doi:10.1177/1354067x09344880

Examining Evidence for Autonomy and Relatedness in Urban Inuit Parenting

2009· article· en· W2109084139 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kelly McShane, Paul D. Hastings, Janet Smylie, Conrad Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture & Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsAutonomyDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyContext (archaeology)AffectionChild rearingSocial psychologyGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inuit have experienced significant lifestyle changes in the past 50 years. Most recently, urbanization has resulted in greater numbers of Inuit living in urban centres in southern Canada. Little is known about Inuit parenting, and nothing has been published on Inuit parenting in an urban context. The present study sought to address this gap by describing the parenting of Inuit living in a large Canadian city and examining emergent themes for evidence of autonomy and relatedness. In partnership with the Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Centre, 39 Inuit parents completed an interview about their parenting experiences. Based on interviews, major parenting themes included: child characteristics; parenting behaviours and beliefs; affection and love; stressors; and responsive and respectful parenting. The majority of parenting themes linked to relatedness, although there was evidence of autonomy in both parenting behaviours and child characteristics. Results are interpreted in light of the autonomy-relatedness framework and theoretical implications of findings are discussed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture & PsychologySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207