Parenting in Bangladesh: A Review of the Literature from 2006 to 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was a point of departure for future research on the need for a coherent understanding and knowledge of parenting in Bangladesh. This article presents the findings from an integrative research review on parenting in Bangladesh. A comprehensive search conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, and PsychINFO using the keywords “parenting”, “childcare”, “motherhood”, “fatherhood”, “mothering”, “fathering”, each paired with “Bangladesh” yielded 246 articles. Twenty papers published between 2006 and 2018 were selected for thematic analysis based on pre-set criteria. In most studies, the term mother was used interchangeably with parent, with mothers regarded as the primary caregiver. Parenting in the Bangladeshi context was found to be conceptualized primarily in terms of attitudes, disciplinary practices, feeding, parent–child interaction, and psychosocial stimulation. Parenting components aimed at moral development and attachment building in children were underrepresented. The data revealed largely inconsistent and uncoordinated discussions of parental practices, demonstrating the lack of a holistic approach in the literature in Bangladesh. Research on parenting in Bangladesh favors gendered assumptions of females as the primary caregiver. Based on their findings, the authors recommend qualitative studies to better reflect and conceptualize the concept of parenting in Bangladesh.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".