MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321096496 · doi:10.1080/09575146.2023.2179961

Barriers to involvement in parenting activities in school-based preschools in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Canada

2023· article· en· W4321096496 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julie Poissant, Stéphanie Langheit, France Capuano, Christa Japel, François Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Years Journal of International Research and Development · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyQualitative researchPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preschool is a particularly opportune time to introduce measures that promote parental school-based involvement, as this is when the initial contact with the school is made. In Québec, a French-speaking province in Canada, voluntary school-based preschools for 4-year-olds have been offered to families in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. A component for parents comprised of 10 activities was developed specifically to promote parent involvement from the beginning of their child’s schooling. However, some parents are more likely than others to encounter barriers that curtail their participation in these activities. Seventeen teachers working in preschools for 4-year-olds in targeted areas and 25 of their parents participated in this qualitative study. The study’s objective was to identify the barriers to participation among parents whose involvement in school activities during the school year was low. Based on Hornby and Lafaele’s conceptual model, a phronetic iterative analysis was used to describe the experiences reported by teachers and parents. Finally, the four main findings emerging from this study were formulated, and avenues for reflection by school-based preschool personnel were put forward.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Years Journal of International Research and DevelopmentSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207