Early childcare and physical aggression: differentiating social selection and social causation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some research findings have suggested that group day-care may be associated with an increased risk for physical aggression. METHODS: Cross-sectional maternal questionnaire data from a representative sample of 3431 Canadian 2- to 3-year-olds were used to compare rates of physical aggression shown by children looked after by their own mothers and those attending group day-care. A family risk index (using occupational level, maternal education, size of sibship, and family functioning) was created to test whether any difference in physical aggression might reflect social selection rather than social causation. RESULTS: Aggression was significantly more common in children looked after by their own mothers than in those attending group day-care. Strong social selection associated with family risk was found, not only in the sample as a whole, but even within the high-risk subsample. However, after taking social selection into account, physical aggression was significantly more common in children from high-risk families looked after by their own parents. No such difference was evident in the majority (84%) of children from low-risk families. CONCLUSION: Insofar as there are any risks for physical aggression associated with homecare they apply only to high-risk families.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".