MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536814897 · doi:10.1177/0895904816673739

Parental Involvement Initiatives: An Analysis

2016· article· en· W2536814897 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

VenueEducational Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyMental healthPsychologyParenting skillsDevelopmental psychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational policies have increasingly promoted parental involvement as a mechanism for improving student outcomes. Few jurisdictions have provided funding for this priority. In Ontario, Canada, the province’s Parents Reaching Out Grants program allows parents to apply for funding for a parental involvement initiative that addresses a local barrier to parent participation. This study categorizes initiatives ( N = 11,171) amounting to approximately 10 million dollars (Can$) in funding from 2009 to 2014 and compares them across school settings. Although results show several key contextual differences, parents across settings identify relatively similar needs for enabling parental involvement, emphasizing parenting approaches for supporting well-being (e.g., nutrition, mental health, and technology use) and skills for home-based learning. However, Epstein’s widely used parental involvement typology conceals these prominent aspects of parental involvement. A modified model of parental involvement is presented that may serve as a guide for enhancing parent participation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.359 · 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