MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800511289 · doi:10.31129/lumat.6.1.293

Parental engagement in children’s STEM education. Part II: Parental attitudes and motivation

2018· article· en· W2800511289 on OpenAlex
Carlos C. F. Marotto, Marina Milner‐Bolotin

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLUMAT International Journal on Math Science and Technology Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsOutreachPsychologyCurriculumGovernment (linguistics)Medical educationEvent (particle physics)Developmental psychologyPedagogyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This mixed-methods case study examines parental motivation for participation in a Canadian university-based STEM outreach event. Parents responded to a post-event questionnaire that was followed by individual interviews. The quantitative part revealed how and why parents engaged with their children’s STEM education. Surprisingly, neither university admission requirements nor STEM-related job opportunities were top motivating factors. The qualitative part indicated that some parents found it challenging to connect their children’s learning experience in school with the government-mandated curriculum or with their own experiences. Most interviewees were satisfied with their children’s STEM education and considered family support crucial in this process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.326 · 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