Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research on the information-seeking behaviour of parents is extremely narrow in scope, focusing on parents whose children have medical or psychological concerns. This research hopes to share the information-seeking behaviours of a broader population, parents of adolescents (children between 10-19 years old). Using the Information Horizon Method (Sonnenwald 1999), this research project incorporates semi-structured interviews with three mothers who currently have two adolescent children each. The interviews contained neutral questions regarding information resources used by parents when determining general information regarding their children’s lives. The findings show that there is a great preference for interpersonal resources, with the most attended to and preferred ones being the resources inside the home, which include spouse, the child, or the child’s sibling. It is only if they are not satisfied with the information gathered from those resources that the parents would go outside the home, at which point the resources are chosen based on the situation. Certain resources that parents are attempting to have in their information horizon are social media and internet use. Parents use different techniques to access information on their children’s social media accounts or look at friends’ private profiles. They also incorporate techniques with computers in general, such as allowing them only in open spaces, where parents are able to quickly glance at screens. Lastly, all parents depicted an indescribable embodied knowledge that concerned the state of their children. This intuition was the starting point of all information-seeking processes depicted in this research project. They called this intuition maternal instinct.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".