MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117244094 · doi:10.5539/ies.v7n3p67

Emphases of Parenting in the Light of Three Comparison Groups

2014· article· en· W2117244094 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGrounded theoryDevelopmental psychologyPhenomenonVariation (astronomy)Parenting stylesContent analysisTask (project management)Mathematics educationSocial psychologyQualitative researchSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parenthood is a phenomenon that is not easy to research. This study analyzed the emphases of parenting in the light of three comparison groups. The research was grounded on Bradley’s (2007) theory of six fundamental parenting tasks. This was a case study focusing in one second-grade classroom. The teacher, 18 parents, and 19 pupils were recruited in the study. The data comprised three sets as well: questionnaires for parents, pupils’ essays and drawings, and the teacher interview. The data were collected in 2012. The analysis represented theory-led content analysis. The results showed that the emphases of parenting tasks varied among the comparison groups and the emphases are illustrated in a triangle showing the variation. The most important task was the present parent who loves the children, and discusses and gives time for them. The role of parental love as the fundamental basis of parenting is 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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.346 · 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