“I’m going to change the WIFI password if you don't go outside!”: a qualitative examination of changes in parenting practices over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Parenting practices are an important influence on the movement behaviours of children. Parenting practices are shaped by various contextual factors (e.g., culture, sociodemographic, community) and are susceptible to external pressures, such as health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Situated within the revised Family Ecological Model, the purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore changes in parenting practices over time in relation to the evolving nature of this global event. Methods: One-on-one semi-structured interviews with 40 parents of children (aged 7-11) in three Canadian provinces were conducted in August, 2021. A narrative thematic analysis was conducted to develop themes mapping changes in parenting practices and organize the temporal patterns of these changes into shared case trajectories over time. Results: Four themes were constructed to highlight changes in parenting practices: (1) Screen time permissiveness, (2) Force and coercion, (3) Agents of unstructured physical activity, and (4) Stepping back from structured physical activity. These themes were organized into three distinct case trajectories that each represent a shared, chronological narrative for how the first 18 months of the pandemic were broadly experienced by parents. The three trajectories were characterized by: (1) Resilience (2) Enduring impact and (3) Adaptive growth. Discussion: Parenting practices were changed in response to circumstances in both temporary and enduring manners that may continue beyond the pandemic. Further research is needed to longitudinally assess these trajectories in order to support families and enhance understanding of parenting practices in challenging circumstances.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".