Obesity-related parenting practices, styles, and family functioning: A natural experiment comparing pandemic and nonpandemic data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 357) self-reported their obesity-related parenting practices, styles, and family functioning. Covariate-adjusted regression models compared parenting practices between the samples. Interactions tested the moderating effects of family functioning and parenting styles on mothers' and fathers' parenting practices separately. Compared to nonpandemic mothers, pandemic mothers reported more frequent family meals, more screen time negotiation, and lower modeling of healthy screen time. Both pandemic mothers and fathers reported lower physical activity facilitation than nonpandemic parents. Parenting styles moderated some of these associations; for example, pandemic authoritative parents used less physical activity monitoring (mothers) and screen time negotiation (fathers) as opposed to uninvolved and permissive parents who reported higher use of these practices. The association between pandemic and parenting practices was also moderated by family functioning, especially among fathers. Among high-functioning families, pandemic fathers reported greater engagement in food monitoring, emotional feeding, coercive feeding, healthy screen time modeling, and emotional compensation with screens than nonpandemic fathers and low-functioning family fathers. Pandemic conditions may have negatively affected obesity-related parenting practices, but most associations were moderated by the familial context. The extent to which this will have long-lasting effects on adolescents' health needs to be further explored. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".