What role does the ‘parent-effect’ play in child centered research? The case of photo-interviews of children’s home reading practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on a photo-interview study of home reading practices with 35 children (ages 5–8) we examine how the ‘parent-effect’ influences research with young children. Not surprisingly, we find that parents influence reading practices and access to literacy resources. However, it is also clear that children’s reliance on parents affects data collection. Children who have more help from parents produce better photographs and a clearer narrative about home reading practices, but parents’ use of impression management influence the images that children produce and sometimes the photo-interview that follows. Rather than compromising children’s agency or the purity of the data, we argue that the parent-effect can be used an indicator of cultural norms about parenting; it can shed light into the dynamics of the parent-child relationships; and it can illuminate the degree to which children exert ‘child capital’ over home reading practices and the social construction of family life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.160 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".