MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892296651 · doi:10.1037/cbs0000032

The discrepancy between sensitivity beliefs and sensitive parenting behaviors of ethnic majority and ethnic minority mothers.

2016· article· en· W2892296651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hatice Ekmekçi, Maike Malda, Şengül Yağmur, Marinus H. van IJzendoorn, Marian J. Bakermans‐Kranenburg, Judi Mesman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEthnic discriminationMaternal sensitivitySocial psychologyAnthropologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to test the relation between sensitivity beliefs and sensitive behaviors in Dutch ethnic majority and Turkish ethnic minority mothers. Sixty mothers, 30 in the Dutch and 30 in the Turkish group, with a child between the ages of 2 and 5 years participated. Sensitivity belief scores were derived by correlating the Maternal Behaviour Q-Sort (Pederson, Moran, & Bento, 1999), the expertderived profile of the highly sensitive mother, with mothers' beliefs about the ideal mother. For observed sensitive behaviors, mothers and children were observed in a free play situation with the Emotional Availability Scales (Biringen, 2008). Dutch mothers scored higher on sensitivity beliefs and sensitive behaviors than Turkish mothers, and this relation between ethnicity and sensitivity (beliefs and behaviors) was not mediated by socioeconomic status (SES). Sensitivity beliefs were not related to sensitive behaviors in either group, and ethnicity and SES did not moderate this association. Further investigation of the relation between sensitivity beliefs and sensitive behaviors could inform interventions on how to translate improved parenting beliefs into improvements in parenting practices.

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)0.006
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207