The Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Elementary Students’ Academic Achievement in China: One-Only Children vs. Children with Siblings
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
One-only children have long been a research concern and previous studies have consistently found that one-only children posed academic advantages. However, we know very little about why one-only children scored higher in school examinations than their peers with siblings. Parental involvement might be the reason underlies this difference. This study compares the relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic achievement in families with only one child and families with more than one child in China. The results indicate that parents with only one child are more involved in their children’s learning compared with their counterparts with more than one child. The findings also suggest that parent-child communication and parent-child activities can positively predict one-only children’s academic performance, whereas parent-school contact negatively predicts non-only children’s academic performance. These findings highlight the complexity and importance of parental involvement in academic achievement and presents implications for future practice.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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