Evolving Korean Parenting Foundations Revealed through Children’s Perspectives of East Asian Parenting Beliefs, Styles and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on parenting styles and children’s developmental outcomes have been prominent in the parenting and achievement literature for decades and research shows that parenting style is not consistent across families from diverse backgrounds (Baumrind, 1971; Chao, 1994; Grusec, Goodnow, & Kuzcynski, 2000). Building on this research, this study examines Korean parenting and its influence on Korean-American achievement by examining the common factors across East Asian parenting ideologies, styles, and practices through the East Asian Parenting Model (EAPM) (Chao, 1994; Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, & Kim, 2013; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Perceptions about child development and learning and the changing and evolving mother-child relationship are patterns particularly explored in this study. Overall, this study purports important findings regarding evolving Korean parenting foundations affecting Korean-American achievement which add to the field of Asian-American achievement literature. These findings may help inform educators working within school settings about ways in which Korean parenting foundations influence the education of these children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".