MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W322042547

Factors that Influence on Child Care Expenses of Single Mother Families in the U. S.

2008· article· en· W322042547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sun-Wook Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Home Economics Association · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptChild careSingle mothersMarital statusQuarter (Canadian coin)Single parentSurvey of Income and Program ParticipationEarningsFamily incomeChild supportPsychologyAffect (linguistics)PaymentDemographyMedicineFamily medicineDemographic economicsBusinessDevelopmental psychologyFinanceEconomicsPopulationPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthAccounting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the 1999 National Survey of America's Families(NSAF), this study investigated the factors that affect child care expenses and examined financial and social support of single mother families in the U. S. In this study, 4,676 single mother families with children aged twelve and under are included for the analytical sample. About half of all single mother families with children under age 12 had some amount of child care expenses in 1999. Monthly child care expenses for those who had child care expenses was an average of $255 and it accounted for about 15 percent of their family earnings. The profile of financial and social support showed that about one-quarter of single mothers received financial support for child care, one-fifth received free child care by relatives and about 40 percent received child support payments from nonresident fathers. Tobit analysis results showed that the significant factors that affected child care expenses were mother's age, marital status, educational level, employment status, the numbers of children aged 0-5, family income, the receipt of public assistance and financial support for child care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Home Economics AssociationSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207