The Effect of Parenting Styles on Children’s Familiarity with Traffic Signs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The community, and especially the family, affects children’s traffic safety. Parents influence children’s current and future traffic behaviors. Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship between parenting style and children’s behavioral problems such as antisocial behaviors and delinquency, so the modification of parenting styles could have a positive impact on the interactions between parents and children. In the literature on children’s traffic safety, parental influence has long been recognized as an important aspect of research, but parent-related factors are mostly unknown. In particular, a factor that can affect parents’ attitudes and children’s views of road safety is parenting style. Therefore, this study aims to examine children’s knowledge of traffic signs utilizing a parenting styles’ perspective. The determining role of demographic characteristics in traffic skills is critical and is investigated in this study. In this study, 1011 preschool, first-, second-, and third-grade students were interviewed and information about parenting styles and demographic characteristics were collected from questionnaires completed by parents. Through interviews, children’s familiarity with law enforcement and informative signs was assessed. Results indicated that older children and those with higher socioeconomic status had better skills in this field. The results also showed that parents could improve their children’s understanding of signs by less use of inconsistent discipline and corporal punishments. Parental negligence, contradictory use of corporal punishment, and nonuse of positive behaviors are some factors which are most likely related to children’s knowledge of traffic signs and rules. The findings of this study can guide parents and assist relevant authorities to implement policies to more effectively train young children by developing practical and targeted resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".