MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039553601 · doi:10.1080/1350293x.2020.1783931

Understanding the intention of Chinese parents to enroll their children in early enrichment programs – A social media perspective

2020· article· en· W3039553601 on OpenAlexaff
Yiqing Yu, Xinghua Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Early Childhood Education Research Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
FundersGuangdong Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Social norms approachSocial mediaDescriptive statisticsStructural equation modelingSocial influenceInterpretation (philosophy)Developmental psychologyChinaSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early learning centers are springing up rapidly in China. However, parents are confronted with high prices and difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of early enrichment programs (EEPs). This study was driven by this phenomenon and aimed to investigate parental decision-making processes of buying EEPs from a social media perspective. We sampled 271 Chinese parents and analyzed data by partial least squares based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The results show that social media use intensity positively predicted injunctive norms and descriptive norms. The mediating analysis confirms that injunctive norms and descriptive norms are internalized into parental attitude to EEPs with varying degrees. This evidence serves as a new interpretation of the contrasting effect sizes of injunctive norms vs. descriptive norms on parental intention. The data however does not confirm that better-educated parents are less influenced by social norms in EEPs decision-making. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in the paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Early Childhood Education Research JournalSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207