MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156224024 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v49i2.54974

Affordances and Constraints of Immigrant Chinese Parental Expectations on Children's School Performance

2003· article· en· W2156224024 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceImmigrationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMathematics educationPedagogyCognitive psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Affordances and Constraints of Immigrant Chinese Parental Expectations on Children's School PerformanceMore than three decades ago an experimental demonstration of the power of expectations known as the "Pygmalion Effect" revealed that teachers' expectations could actually serve as an educational self-fulfilling prophecy for students' intellectual performances (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).Further research on interpersonal expectations has led to a basic assumption that person A's expectations can potentially influence person B's performance (Blanck, 1993).Parental expectations have been identified as the most important contributor to children's school achievement (Hoge, Smit, & Crist 1997;Patrikakou, 1997;Seiginer, 1983).Although positive effects of parental expectations are prominent in Asian cultures (Hirschman & Wong, 1986;Peng & Wright, 1994;Schneider & Lee, 1990), studies on immigrant Chinese families, the largest visible minority in Canada, remain rare.In my recently completed doctoral work I examined affordances and constraints of immigrant Chinese parental expectations on their children's school performances.The qualitative dat obtained from open-ended interviews with seven recent-immigrant Chinese families, both parents and their adolescent children, allowed me to infer four common themes on the potential affordances of parental expectations: goal orientation, mastery learning experiences, internal control beliefs, and study habits.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207