Socioeconomic Disadvantage in Infancy and Academic and Self-Regulation Outcomes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A comprehensive understanding of how timing of exposure to disadvantage affects long-term developmental risk is needed for greater precision in child health policy. We investigated whether socioeconomic disadvantage in infancy (age 0-1 years) directly affects academic and self-regulation problems in late childhood (age 10-12 years), independent of disadvantage at school entry (age 4-6 years). METHODS: = 5107). Generalized linear models were used to estimate the crude and adjusted effects. Marginal structural models were used to estimate the controlled direct effect of socioeconomic disadvantage in infancy on academic and self-regulation outcomes in late childhood, independent of disadvantage at school entry. RESULTS: In both cohorts, socioeconomic disadvantage in infancy and at school entry was associated with poorer academic and self-regulation outcomes. Socioeconomic disadvantage in infancy had a direct effect on academic outcomes not mediated by disadvantage at school entry (ATP: risk ratio [RR] = 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.86; LSAC: RR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.52-2.31). Little evidence was found for a direct effect of disadvantage in infancy on self-regulation (ATP: RR = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.89-1.65; LSAC: RR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.95-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic disadvantage in infancy had a direct effect on academic but not self-regulation outcomes in late childhood. More precise public policy responses are needed that consider both the timing of children's exposure to disadvantage and the specific developmental domain impacted.
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 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 it