Is Parental Monitoring Just A Way to Acquire Knowledge? Re-Evaluating A Re-Conceptualization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the 1950s to 1990s, parental monitoring was conceptualized and studied as an independent “socializing mechanism,” driving changes in youth adjustment via several channels. In the past two decades, parental monitoring has become re-conceptualized in many papers as simply one of several ways to obtain parental knowledge, with knowledge replacing monitoring as the construct of central interest. This paper reviews literature showing that this re-conceptualization is not supported by the extant empirical evidence and is strongly contradicted by theory, because parental monitoring may impact youth adjustment in several plausible ways that do not involve acquiring knowledge. As a result, we recommend the field change how it conceptualizes parental monitoring vis-a-vis parental knowledge. Just as we realized parental knowledge doesn’t come only from parental monitoring, now we should realize that parental monitoring is not only a way to get parental knowledge. More evidence is needed to determine exactly how much of the effect of monitoring flows through increased knowledge and what alternative channels are in play.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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".