Examiner les Résultats Relatifs aux Pratiques Parentales et les Facteurs Prédicteurs issus du Programme Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (PDEP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le programme Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (PDEP) apporte des techniques alternatives à la punition physique, aux parents, en promouvant la discipline positive. Cette étude évalue de façon préliminaire l’efficacité du programme sur des pratiques parentales telles que la discipline positive, l’utilisation de la punition physique et non-physique. Nous examinons auprès de parents si les changements post-programme sur ces pratiques parentales sont prédits par les variables appartenant au modèle cognitif du programme et celles appartenant au modèle des buts et actions. Les résultats montrent une diminution significative sur l’utilisation de la punition non-physique suite à la participation au programme, comparé aux parents sur la liste d’attente. De plus, les parents les plus impulsifs ont tendance à profiter le plus du programme. Ces résultats ont des implications importantes concernant les facteurs déterminants pour le succès du programme et les éléments qui peuvent influencer des changements dans l’utilisation de stratégies parentales punitives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".