MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148738968 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v20i2.167

Chinese Immigrant Parents’ Involvement in their Children’s School Education: High Interest but Low Action

2011· article· en· W2148738968 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Zhong Lan, George Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPsychologyQualitative researchChinese cultureAction (physics)School educationDevelopmental psychologyPedagogySociologyChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using interview as the primary data collection method, this qualitative study examined how Chinese immigrant parents are involved in their children’s school education and what factors shape the formats of their involvement. Twelve Chinese immigrant families participated in this study. Data analysis reveals that Chinese parents got involved in their children’s school education regardless of personal experiences. They expressed beliefs that parental involvement is beneficial to both the school and children. However, generally speaking, participants did not go to their children’s school without teachers’ invitation. Language barrier, lack of time and energy, and unfamiliarity with the Canadian school culture were stated as the main reasons that contributed to participants’ limited involvement in school activities. Particularly, new immigrants often feel intimidated to talk to teachers since they do not know what they can say and what not given their unfamiliarity with the Canadian school culture.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207