MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302774346 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n4p93

The Study of Psychological Aspects of Iranian Mothers’ Lullabies

2016· article· en· W2302774346 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vahid Khodaie Majd, Arastu Bakhshaliyev

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainability, Governance, and Employment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCreativityFeelingNonprobability samplingContent analysisPsychicDevelopmental psychologyCognitionSocial psychologySocial scienceAlternative medicinePopulationPsychiatrySociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lullabies are one of the best and most appealing national-spiritual songs of the Iranian nation reflecting their high creativity in treating their children. The purpose of the present qualitative study is to examine the psychological aspects of the lullabies used by Iranian mothers through content analysis. Almost two thousand and five hundred lullabies of Farsi and Azeri speaking regions of Iran were selected based on purposive sampling. Having ensured the validity of the sources and documents of the lullabies in the regions, interpretive approach was adopted for studying and analyzing the contents of the lullabies. The content analysis of the lullabies under study indicated their far reaching psychological role in psychic health of the children, especially in creating positive self-concept, feeling of peace and security, reduced stress, and reinforcement of cognitive abilities as well as other psychological aspects, all of which have been discussed in this study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicSustainability, Governance, and Employment StudiesFrench-language works237,207