Parent-Child Communication: A Case Study of Teachers from a Romanian Life-Sciences University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to explore and present a specific point of view of university teacher parents about communication with their children, using focus group interviews. The focus group was conducted with tenured teachers (N = 12) from a Life Science university from western Romania. The parents’ ages varied from 34 to 48 years old (M age = 39.83 years) and relating to gender, there were 7 females and 5 males. Data collected from the interviews were analyzed using thematic analyses methods. Most of the parents have considered that parent-child communication represents an essential element in child development and in a positive family environment. Time, stress and overuse of technology are considered, by questioned parents, to be the main barriers to positive and efficient communication with their children. School is not perceived as a catalyst in developing a positive parent-child communication. Even if the parents are tenured university teachers, with knowledge in effective communication, and high expectations from society to be especially good at parent-child communication, they face the same difficulties as any other parents. This aspect could lead to a conclusion that the problems of parent-child communication could be a general one. The implications for families with school-age children are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".