MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621148872 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.48.2.175

Positive Parenting and Parenting Stress Among Working Mothers in Finland, the UK and the Netherlands: Do Working Time Patterns Matter?

2017· article· en· W2621148872 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Rönkä, Kaisa Malinen, Eija Sevón, Riitta‐Leena Metsäpelto, Vanessa May

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyContext (archaeology)Working motherStructural equation modelingParenting stylesWorking timeChild rearingSocial psychologyWork (physics)Political scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the effects of working time patterns on positive parenting and parenting stress, and the moderating effects of working hours, the unpredictability of work schedules, and autonomy over working time in a European context. This cross-national survey study compared Finnish (n = 337), Dutch (n = 283) and British (n = 317) mothers with children under the age of 13, using structural equation modeling with a multigroup procedure. We found a connection between working time patterns and positive parenting but the nature of the connection differed between countries. In all three countries, no relationship was found between working time pattern and parenting stress, while unpredictable work schedules were associated with both reduced positive parenting and increased parenting stress. The study contributes to our understanding of the role that country-specific socio-cultural context plays in the impact that working time patterns can have on parenting.

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)0.005
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207