Parenting Behaviour as a Mediator of the Effects of Poverty on Canadian Children`s School Readiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the seriously increasing rise of child poverty in the world, research designed to pinpoint the optimal timing of intervention and identify factors, which can moderate the devastating impacts of child poverty, is of critical importance. The major questions addressed in this study are:(a) whether or not the presence of different parenting styles might offset the risks associated with parental poverty (e.g. , poor school readiness),and (b) whether these predictors are best described using a moderator or a mediator model, As a means of extending knowledge about long-term child development, a demographic questionnaire was used to measure the parental poverty status when children were 2 years old. The Parenting Behavior Questionnaire was used when the children were 4 years old, and teacher-reported child school readiness skills were used when the children were at grade 1 Using structure equation modelling analyses, the results of this study confirmed and extended evidence that child school readiness is significantly effected by parental poverty through parenting behavior styles. Hence, this study clearly reveals a possibility of breaking the devastating impact of parental poverty on child academic development and shows a different aspect through a transmission gap.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".