Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Home Numeracy and Literacy Environments: Canada, Mexico, and Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home numeracy and literacy environments are related to the development of children’s early academic skills. However, the home learning environments of preschool children have been mainly explored with children from North America, Europe, and Asia. In this study we assessed the home numeracy and literacy environments of three-to-five-year-old children from Mexico (n = 54) and Chile (n = 41) and compared the patterns of results to those of children from Canada (n = 42). Parents completed a questionnaire about their expectations for children’s academic performance prior to Grade 1 and the home numeracy and literacy activities they provide for their children. To analyze differences among countries in the home learning environments, we performed mixed and one-way ANOVAs (Analysis of Variance), followed-up by post-hoc comparisons. Mexican parents had higher expectations for children’s early skills than Chileans or Canadians. The frequency with which Mexican, Canadian, and Chilean parents reported home numeracy and literacy activities showed both similarities and differences. Our findings speak to the importance of developing culturally sensitive models of early home learning environments and illustrate the complexities of comparing home learning environments across countries.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".