MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2761987403 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e94a

167: Supports and Resources Used by Adults Regarding Child Development: Results from a Provincial Survey

2015· article· en· W2761987403 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Gibbard, K MacLellan, Anna Pujadas Botey, Suzanne Tough

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationMedicinePhoneResidenceChild developmentFamily medicinePsychologyDemographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult knowledge of child development shapes their expectations and feedback to children as they learn and grow. Effective guidance of children by adults is influenced by their knowledge of child development. There are gaps in our understanding about what information and resources adults access related to child development. Research has focused on knowledge of child development among parents despite an increased acknowledgement that children are exposed to a range of adult influences. To review the supports and services used by adults regarding child development, including: (1) what information sources are used, and; (2) what key people or professionals are accessed for advice about children? To determine whether these supports and services vary by parents versus non-parents, urban versus rural residence, or if the adult was a parent of a child with a special health care need (SHCN). A telephone survey of 1,451 randomly selected adults – both parents and non-parents – was conducted in 2013 and explored parenting supports and services, and included demographic information. Data were analyzed using univariate and bivariate techniques (P<0.05). Key information sources regarding child development identified included books (68%), television/media (43%), recreation centres (41%), and the public library (38%). Key parenting supports were family members or friends (76%), family doctors or pediatricians (61%), and teachers (54%). Parents were more likely to access any resource or support than non-parents. Adults living in urban settings were more likely to use physicians, child-care providers, the public library, and phone advice services for information about children than rural adults. Parents of children with SHCN were more likely to contact teachers and developmental specialists about their children than parents of children without SHCN. Online access of information was preferred by 47%. Adults use a variety of information sources regarding child development, and access these resources through the internet and in various community settings or organizations. Information is also obtained from social networks including family and friends. Health service providers and educators in particular are a key source of information for adults about child development. There is an opportunity to make accessible already existing programs and services that support families and children that target both parents and non-parents using the venues, organizations and professionals identified from this survey.

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)0.003
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 score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChild and Adolescent Health→French-language works237,207→