“Boys Love Boy Toys”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Role of Fathers in Young Boys’ Gendered Toy Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Early childhood is an especially important period for children’s acquisition of gender related attitudes and beliefs. For boys, fathers serve as one of the primary social influences through which they learn about common gender stereotypes, including gender-typical and cross-gender play. The current qualitative study was conducted with six boys (ages 4–6) and their fathers (ages 34–37), where fathers were first asked to complete an adapted version of the Child-Rearing Sex-Role Attitude Scale, which assessed their attitudes and beliefs about gender related toys, activities, and behaviors. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the father-son pairs, or with the boys alone, where they participated in a series of toy-preference activities. Descriptive coding and content analysis were used to analyze the responses boys provided for their choices of toys. Responses indicated that boys have a more stereotyped definition of “girl toys” than they do of “boy toys”. Fathers’ self-described beliefs reported on the Sex-Role Attitude Scale were similarly reflected in their behaviours and comments during the interviews with their sons.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".