The Results of the Study «Attitude of Parents to the Problem of Toys in a Child's Life: Socio-Pedagogical Aspect»: to the Problem of Responsible Parenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents the results of the study «Attitude of parents to the problem of toys in a child's life: socio-pedagogical aspect». It is noted that toys play a significant role in the upbringing, development, socialization of the child. At that time, the responsibility for choosing/purchasing toys remains with adults. The study was conducted in November-December 2021 in Khmelnitsky and Zhytomyr regions among men and women aged 20 years and older with at least one child. The results obtained made it possible to state a number of issues in the stated problems: parents do not always understand educational, didactic, etc. importance of toys in a child's life. Toys for children are bought mainly by women; men, in a certain way, are removed from this issue; also because many women are forced to raise children without men. Among the selected clusters of toys, toys-characters and toys-replicas of real objects are more often bought, compared with toys-space markers and educational toys. A significant number of participants confirmed that regardless of the age of the children, they use gadgets (mobile phones) as toys. Parents do not always realize the degree of their responsibility for the safety of children online and in social space, which have modern gadgets as toys. Among the participants in the experiment, there are many men and women who do not distinguish/identify the concepts of «toy», «games», «game activity». In the context of responsible fatherhood, we also consider the fact that a quarter of the women and men surveyed showed that instead of toys they read books with their children and watch cartoons/movies as positive results in the context of responsible fatherhood.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".