‘Supervising children to be good people’: Parents and children's views of child supervision in Laos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Researchers have paid little attention to child supervision in Laos, an ethnically‐diverse country with a community‐informal child protection system, and where many young children are regularly home alone or with another child. To explore what constitutes (in)adequate child supervision and its perceived effects, we conducted individual interviews with community leaders and professionals ( n = 23) and focus group discussions with parents/adult caregivers ( n = 74) and 12–17 year‐old children ( n = 51) in six rural villages in Saravane and Borikhamxay provinces. Adults and children in both provinces described similar understandings and support systems of child supervision. Mothers are the main caregivers of young children, and literate fathers contribute to supervising school‐age children. Grandparents, older siblings and other relatives, teachers, and village authorities contribute substantively to child supervision. The main aims of supervision are child safety, socialization and moral development in cultural context. Parental unavailability due to employment, farming and migration; limited infrastructure; and lack of material resources are the main barriers to adequate supervision and may result in injuries, school dropout, teenage pregnancy and illicit drug use. Understanding the determinants, consequences, and patterns of child supervision across cultural and socio‐economic groups is needed to inform culturally acceptable strategies to support children and families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".