Comparison of Canadian and Dutch Urban Parents and Grandparents in Terms of Knowledge of Children’s Cognitive and Social–Emotional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of child development influences parental expectations of, and interactions with, children. Studies have shown that maternal knowledge supports cognitive and social–emotional development of young children and can have long-lasting benefits. Level of developmental knowledge of parents and grandparents has seldom been investigated on a population level. Our aim was to compare Canadian and Dutch samples of urban parents and grandparents in terms of normative knowledge of children’s cognitive and social–emotional development. Urban parents ( n = 379) and grandparents ( n = 174) from the province of Alberta, Canada ( N = 553) and parents ( n = 634) and grandparents ( n = 96) of the city of The Hague in the Netherlands ( N = 730) answered questions related to knowledge of cognitive and social–emotional development of young children, including topics such as “do children have stronger bonds with parents who stay at home instead of working outside the home?” and “do children learn more from hearing someone in the same room talk than hearing someone on TV?” Overall, the Canadian respondents were more likely to answer these questions correctly. In both samples, women were more likely than men to answer correctly. No significant relationship between age or role (parent or grandparent) and knowledge was identified, but there was a positive correlation between knowledge and level of education. Little is known about international differences in caregivers’ knowledge about normative child development. This study suggests that differences exist. Understanding differences between countries in parental knowledge may provide insight into cross-cultural variability in child behavioral and developmental outcomes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".