Developing a preschool and parent program in a rural Cambodian village : the perspectives of parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational programs are more likely to be successful when practitioners and parents have a shared vision of goals and expectations for the program, as parents are said to be part of a complex environment that influence the goals, concerns, and expectations they have for their children and their children's educational experiences. This study of parents' perspectives of educational programs was conducted in a rural Cambodian village with the support of a local non-government organization (NGO); an organization that is in the midst of developing preschool and parent programs for the children and families who live in the village. Interviews were conducted with parents to understand parents' goals for their children's future, and their goals for the preschool and parent programs. The study was conducted by utilizing Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework and was informed by the principles of Community Based Research. The study found that parents value education and hope that their children's educational attainment will lead to a favourable career path, that parents want access to preschool and parent programs, and are willing to support the programs through donations of time, money, or food. Parent support through donations indicates parents' willingness to engage with projects, an important aspect of sustainable development.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".