Parenting values and parenting stress among impoverished village and middle-class small city mothers in the Dominican Republic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poverty is known to influence parenting values, parenting stress, psychological adjustment, and social support according to North American research. The purpose of this study was to determine whether poverty might work in similar ways in a collectivistic Latin culture. The participants were primary caregivers in two distinct communities in the Dominican Republic: the Campos (extremely poor villages) and the middle-class areas of San Cristobal, a small city. As predicted, Campos mothers endorsed conformity and obedience as parenting goals, whereas San Cristobal mothers valued exploration and self-direction in their children. Unlike poor mothers in the US, and contrary to our expectations, Campos mothers reported relatively good social support and less parenting stress than did San Cristobal mothers. Furthermore, Campos mothers were not more depressed than San Cristobal caregivers, although the Campos mothers did report more somatic symptoms. In our Dominican sample, being better educated and being less well adjusted are linked to the experience of greater parenting stress, whereas social support is predictive of less parenting stress. These findings suggest that not all prevailing theories with regard to maternal poverty and parenting can be adapted uncritically to cultures like that of the Dominican Republic, where poverty is the situation of the majority.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".