Negotiating child agency in childcare practices among immigrant families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the context of migration, different perspectives of child agency can influence childcare practices and may create tensions within families and in the host society. This study explores the individual, relational, environmental, and cultural factors that influence how child agency is understood and exercised within immigrant households. Focus group discussions were conducted with first‐ and second‐generation immigrant children (12‐ to 17‐year‐old) (N = 46) and parents (N = 19) from South‐Asia, Latin‐America and the Caribbean in Montreal. Our findings suggest that children exercise agency by taking actions to ensure their own safety and contributing to their families' needs. Moreover, we found that negotiating children's agency is influenced by the nature of the parent–child relationship, the material and social resources available to the family, and the perceived and lived experiences of authority and safety in the host society. This study advances our understanding of how immigrant children contribute to their families and the role that contextual factors play in shaping, promoting and hindering child agency. Policy makers and service providers in host societies should consider the perspectives of immigrant children and parents in order to develop a more culturally responsive understanding of the elements and processes that influence childcare and supervision practices of immigrant families.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".