MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318460955 · doi:10.54097/ehss.v7i.4075

An Evaluation of Authoritative Parenting Style Through Comparative Discussion of Autonomy Support and Psychological Control: Inspired by the Success of Eileen Gu

2023· article· en· W4318460955 on OpenAlexaff
Xueting Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAutonomyParenting stylesStyle (visual arts)Developmental psychologyContext (archaeology)Psychological controlChampionSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the overnight sensation of Eileen Gu, a prominent youth Olympic freestyle skiing Champion, has won much attention over the globe, the discussion of western and eastern parenting styles and the question of how to raise an outstanding adolescent have become a trending topic in Chinese social media. This paper aims to justify the favorable role of authoritative parenting style under the comparison of psychological control on adolescents’ academic functioning and psychological wellbeing, particularly exemplified by the success of Eileen Gu. By examining prior research conducted on western and eastern adolescents, mainly Chinese adolescents from eastern society, the distinctive cultural values and Chinese educational system contributed to the prevailing adoption of psychological control by Chinese parents compared to their western counterparts. Autonomy support was shown to have consistent positive effects on adolescents’ wellbeing in multiple dimensions across different cultures, whereas psychological control was shown to have destructive effects on western adolescents and nuanced effects but mainly negative on Chinese adolescents. This paper reassures that parents should adopt authoritative parenting style given its universal benefits to adolescents 'development in any cultural context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education Humanities and Social SciencesSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207