Measuring knowledge of child development: Differences between parents according to gender, generation and education
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
A sample of 2,330 parents were surveyed regarding their knowledge of child development in the first three years of life, using a simple, easy to read questionnaire. Items tapped knowledge that would contribute to an authoritative parenting style, which combines warmth and firmness, and is associated with the most favourable child development outcomes. The sample included mothers and fathers of dependant children living at home, as well as grandmothers and grandfathers. While the majority of parents demonstrated good, basic knowledge of child development, there were also relative differences between parent groups, such that knowledge increased consistently with parents' level of educational achievement, and was greater in mothers than fathers. There were also generational differences, with grandfathers being less knowledgeable than present day fathers, and grandmothers less knowledgeable than present day mothers. The questionnaire has potential value for practitioners, as the survey results provide data from a large Australian sample which could support the use of the instrument with at-risk groups, or in parent intervention programs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it