Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand and supply of programs of parenthood programs for fathers are increasing with changes in the image of male parents. Under this backdrop, a necessary requirement is to analyze the current status of father programs that are spearheaded by governments and the satisfaction with them to determine if they actually meet the needs of fathers. This study conducted such an examination for the fatherhood programs that were provided as a mandatory public service by the Healthy Family & Multicultural Family Support Center in 2017. To this end, the research analyzed performance and satisfaction data on 776 projects, including 1293 programs that were required for provision in 101 integrated centers nationwide. The results showed that satisfaction with fatherhood programs differed according to the project area, the location of a center, the period of implementation, the methods of proceeding, the participation unit (whether an entire family or an individual family member), the number of participants, and the number of sessions. Overall, the level of satisfaction was higher in ʻʻfathers meetingsʼʼ (under the community domain) than ʻʻsupport for the father roleʼʼ (under the family relationship domain). In relation to implementation period, satisfaction with the programs was high in the 4th quarter of implementation. Satisfaction with the programs was also higher for culturally based initiatives than education-oriented programs. Satisfaction was higher when the participation unit was the family than when such unit was the individual. The smaller the number of participants, the higher the satisfaction level. Finally, the number of sessions was deemed satisfactory when it was completed in more than four sessions. This study is meaningful in that it provides the basis of effective use of the government budget by analyzing the status and satisfaction of the fatherhood programs, which have been implemented since the integration of the Healthy Families & Multicultural Family Support Center.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".