MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130174102 · doi:10.1177/0192513x13489959

Engagement and Guidance

2013· article· en· W2130174102 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucía Tramonte, Anne H. Gauthier, J. Douglas Willms

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersHuman Resources and Skills Development Canada
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAggressionSocioeconomic statusCognitionMultilevel modelCognitive developmentDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problems with inattention, physical aggression, and poor cognitive skills when children enter school can have long-term negative effects on their development. In this study, we address the issues of whether and how parental engagement and guidance are related to children’s behavioral and cognitive problems throughout elementary school. The analyses are based on data from nearly 10,000 children aged 6 to 11 years followed longitudinally in the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Results were obtained through the multilevel modeling of children’s growth trajectories. We purposefully limited our analyses to the parenting practices of the biological mothers of children from intact families. Our analyses indicate positive relationships between engagement and guidance with children’s cognitive and behavioral development at age 6 as well as over time. These relationships are evident even after controlling for family socioeconomic characteristics; however, they differ with children’s gender and the outcome considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207