“Well, You Feel More Responsible When You’re Unsupervised”: Exploring Family Perspectives on Children’s Independent Mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While children’s independent mobility (CIM) is associated with various benefits, there is evidence of a generational decline in CIM in westernized countries; therefore, it is helpful to understand how CIM is currently negotiated between children and their parents. The purpose of this study was to examine children’s and parents’ perspectives and negotiations of CIM within the family unit. Face-to-face interviews and walk-along interviews were conducted with parents (n = 44) and children (n = 22), respectively. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and a thematic analysis was conducted. Four key preconditions were identified that facilitated negotiation of CIM within family units, including (1) the influence of parents’ childhood experiences regarding their view of CIM (e.g., positive interpretations of childhood on parenting practices), (2) the role of children’s individual characteristics on their independent mobility (e.g., child’s confidence in their abilities), (3) family communication as a key coping strategy (parent–parent and parent–child communication), and (4) the influence of positive perceptions of the social environment on CIM. The findings suggest that CIM thrives when these conditions are present; as a result, it may be particularly helpful to develop policies and programs that support children’s skill training, explore strategies to support communication between parents and children, and build neighbourhood connections.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".