MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153201732 · doi:10.5539/ies.v8n10p107

Development Parenting Model to Increase the Independence of Children

2015· article· en· W2153201732 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kustiah Sunarty, Gufran Darma Dirawan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)PermissivePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyParenting stylesAuthoritarianismPopulationChild rearingDemocracySocial psychologyDemographySociologyStatisticsMedicinePolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines parenting and the child’s independence model. The research problem is whether there is a relationship between parenting and the child’s independence. The purpose of research is to determine: firstly, the type of parenting in an effort to increase the independence of the child; and the relationship between parenting models and the child’s independence. The study population was a junior high school student in the city of Makassar. Data were collected through the scale/questionnaire. Data were analyzed by using descriptive analysis statistics and statistical inferential. The results showed that: firstly the type of parenting patterns used today in relation with the independence of children are respectively: positive parenting, democratic, authoritarian, permissive, negative/unhealthy, and derelict; secondly, a positive parenting and a democratic parenting model can increase the child’s independence, and finally, there is a positive and significant relationship between parenting models and the child independence.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducational Methods and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207