MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598357977 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.44.2.175

Kin in Daily Routines: Time Use and Childrearing in Rural South Africa

2013· article· en· W2598357977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sangeetha Madhavan, Mark D. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsScholarshipContext (archaeology)Child rearingPsychologyDeveloping countrySociologyEconomic growthDevelopmental psychologyDemographic economicsSocial psychologyEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical component of child rearing is time use. There has been a wealth of studies on time use in child rearing focusing on biological parents in the US and western contexts but there is a notable absence of any scholarship on time use that has incorporated extended kin in the African context. This paper examines time use with children in rural South Africa using observational data and incorporates a range of kin and non-kin. The analysis focuses on 24 children under the age of 6 and all the people who interact with them over the course of a week. Through an examination of the composition of care networks, the quantity and quality of time investment, and the relationship between care networks and child outcomes, the findings support a kin-based, socially distributed model of child rearing but also challenge assumptions about the extent of kin involvement and impact on child outcomes.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207