Maternal Depression, Parenting Behaviors and Child Development: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluate the impacts of maternal depression on children's skill accumulation, exploiting randomized variation in depression created by a cluster-randomized control trial that provided cognitive behavioral therapy to women in rural Pakistan who were diagnosed as depressed in pregnancy. We conducted a followup study when the children were age 7 and assessed their cognitive, socio-emotional and physical development, parental investments in children, indicators of the quality of parenting, and of the home environment. The intervention was successful in reducing maternal depression and this effect was sustained. We also find that treated mothers exhibit better parenting behaviors, provide a better home environment and invest more in their children's education. We nevertheless find, on average, no detectible effects on children's cognitive, socio-emotional or physical development at age 7. We show that this is not because of differential attrition, differential shocks to treated vs control clusters or low power. With the odd exception, we find no evidence that the average results conceal large effects in relevant sub-samples, or in a segment of the distribution of outcomes. Since we find reinforcing parental investments in many domains in the treated group, it is also unlikely that the results are explained by unobserved compensating investments in the control group. We conclude that there are possibly positive but latent effects of the intervention that may be detectible in later life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it