Bibliographic record
Abstract
In India, the family is a central unit of social existence and the socialization of children is a key function. Cultural scripts, parents own experiences, family situations and location guide parenting and familial practices. Parents’ beliefs and ethnotheories contain explicit and implicit ideas about the manner in which children ought to be raised. With increasing global interaction and urban movement, the urban Indian family is continually faced with the challenge of keeping up with the fast pace of change. Such change exerts tremendous pressure on the ethos of the family as well as on parenting goals and motivations. This paper explores the nature of parental beliefs or ethnotheories among Indian families. The relatively unexplored territory of everyday conversations, interactions and routines within families has been used to access the nature and source of parents’ ethnotheories. The paper specifically focuses on the manner in which mothers organize the daily routines of young children in the age group 3-6 years. The narratives provide a rich description of family life and have been organized within significant domains of childhood such as feeding and eating, regulation of behavior, development and learning, interpersonal relationships, agency for children and parental aspirations. Families living in Delhi, India formed a part of the study. The influence of cultural and familial diversity as well as situational factors was found to contribute largely to the multiplicity of beliefs. The rapidly changing urban situation indicates a need to renew ideas about parenting and childhood in India.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".