MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are Parents Investing Less Time in Children? Trends in Selected Industrialized Countries

2004· article· en· W2169974677 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation and Development Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeveloped countryMultivariate analysisDemographyPopulationDemographic economicsDeveloping countryConsistency (knowledge bases)Investment (military)GeographyEconomic growthPolitical scienceMedicineEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trends in parental time invested in children since the 1960s are examined in 16 industrialized countries using time‐use survey data. Despite the time pressures that confront today's families, parents appear to be devoting more time to children than they did 40 years ago. Results also suggest that mothers continue to devote more time to childcare than fathers, but the gender gap has been reduced. The consistency of these results across countries suggests a global trend toward an increase in parental time investment in children. Multivariate analysis of trends in parental time by type of activity was undertaken for Canada. It revealed a significant increase in parental time even after controlling for changes in the demographic composition of the population during the past few decades.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.259 · 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