MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225272282 · doi:10.34257/gjhsshvol22is2pg49

The Phenomenon of Parental Rules in Middle Childhood: A Relational Perspective

2022· article· en· W4225272282 on OpenAlexafffund
Leon Kuczynski, Jane Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Human-Social Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSocializationSet (abstract data type)Context (archaeology)Transactional leadershipPerspective (graphical)PsychologyNegotiationPhenomenonThematic analysisDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyTransactional analysisPsychological interventionResistance (ecology)Event (particle physics)Qualitative researchComputer scienceSociologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated neglected processes by which parents create, set, and enforce rules for their children in middle childhood. Forty mothers reported their interactions with children aged 9-13 in the context of setting and enforcing rules and expectations. Data consisted of a five-day digital event diary and a semi-structured interview on parents’ implicit conceptions of rules and the process by which they set and enforced rules. The data were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. Mothers’ reports departed from traditional conceptions in socialization research and family interventions that parents have explicit, stable rules that they should firmly enforce. Mothers indicated that their rules and expectations consisted of a flexible structure of infrequent firm expectations within which most other expectations were dynamically set or offered leeway for negotiation and resistance. Mothers also indicated that their rules and expectations emerged through a co-regulated bi-directional process to which parents and children contributed. The findings support transactional socialization and communication perspectives whereby parents interpret children’s behaviors and make complex choices in setting and implementing their expectations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Human-Social ScienceSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207