MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138996613 · doi:10.1177/0022022108318130

Parents' Personal and Cultural Beliefs Regarding Young Children

2008· article· en· W2138996613 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charissa S. L. Cheah, Valery Chirkov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationSociocultural evolutionCultural valuesPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyIdeologyCultural diversityCultural group selectionSocial psychologyEthnic groupGender studiesSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parental beliefs about desired socialization goals and the reasons why these goals were important were examined among Aboriginal and European Canadian mothers. These beliefs were examined on personal (desired by mothers for their own children) and cultural (perceived to be desired by mothers from each cultural group) levels; 50 Aboriginal and 51 European Canadian mothers of preschoolers were interviewed regarding their parenting beliefs. Commonalities in the tasks that mothers regard as relevant to a young child's social development were found across both groups. However, several goals, behaviors, and qualities were endorsed differently by mothers from the two cultures, according to cultural values and ideologies that were significant for each culture. Moreover, mothers did not automatically accept all culturally sanctioned values but held these values as significant for their own children in different degrees. The study highlights the significance of contemporary sociocultural issues in the cultural study of child socialization.

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)0.005
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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.445
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

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

Citations44
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207