MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond intensive mothering: Racial/ethnic variation in maternal time with children

2024· article· en· W4392214038 on OpenAlexaff
Kei Nomaguchi, Melissa A. Milkie, Veena S. Kulkarni, Amira Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsEthnic groupSocioeconomic statusPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyDemographySociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite substantial evidence that racial/ethnic minority communities exhibit distinct mothering practices, research on racial/ethnic differences in how mothers spend time with their children is scant. Using the 2003-2019 American Time Use Survey (N = 44,372), this study documents variations in the amounts of childcare and copresent time spent in various activities with residential children aged 0-17 across White, Black, Latina, and Asian mothers. The results show that racial/ethnic differences in maternal time spent with children are partly due to socioeconomic differences but still exist when these factors are held constant, indicating patterns that reflect each minority community's mothering norms. Compared to mothers in other groups, Black mothers spend more copresent time with children in religious activities, although less in terms of the total amount of time. Latina mothers spend more copresent time with elementary-school-age children while engaging in daily routines. Asian mothers spend more time teaching and eating with elementary-school-age or younger children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science ResearchSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207