MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027613712 · doi:10.1177/1066480720925829

Helicopter Parenting and the Moderating Impact of Gender and Single-Parent Family Structure on Self-Efficacy and Well-Being

2020· article· en· W3027613712 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Buchanan, Terri LeMoyne

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Family Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySelf-efficacySingle-Parent FamilyDevelopmental psychologyIntersection (aeronautics)Parenting stylesPositive parentingSocial psychologySample (material)GeographyIntervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intersection of helicopter parenting, gender, and single-parent family on self-efficacy and well-being is examined. Existing research on helicopter parenting focuses on negative consequences. Using a sample of students at a university in the mid-southern United States ( N = 247), we find that helicopter parenting is negatively related to self-efficacy and well-being for emerging adult sons from single-parent family backgrounds. Previous research suggests a negative relationship of divorce on sons. In addition, our study finds no substantive relationship of helicopter parenting to self-efficacy and well-being for women. This is an intriguing finding given previous research finding negative consequences. The impacts of helicopter parenting are not uniform across different demographic groups. This information is important for family counselors as well as university administrators in relation to the growing concern for parental involvement in students’ affairs.

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)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Family JournalSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207