Toward a Better Understanding of the Associations Among Different Measures of Father Involvement and Parenting Alliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The variety of measurement methods used in fathering research to assess fathers’ involvement makes it difficult to summarize what we know about paternal involvement and its correlates and antecedents. Aiming to shed light on the potential consequences of using different measures of paternal involvement, this study examined: (a) the associations among three measures of father participation in parental activities, namely self- and mother-reported questionnaires and a father-completed time diary, and (b) their respective associations with a well-documented predictor of father involvement, i.e., parenting alliance. The sample included 80 parental couples with a 6-month-old child. Although moderate associations were found among measures of father involvement, only the maternal and paternal questionnaires were associated with parenting alliance. These results suggest that time diaries and questionnaires tap into different aspects of father involvement that can have distinct correlates and determinants. Better acknowledgment of the diverging results attributable to the use of different measurement approaches of father involvement is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".