The Co‐Parenting Across Family Structures Scale: Replication for Mandarin parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Co-parenting, the undertaking of parents working together to raise their children, is well documented as an important consideration of children's adjustment in Western countries, but we know less about the role of co-parenting in other cultures. In China, for example, co-parenting has only recently emerged in the social science literature. This study aimed to examine the cultural sensitivity of the CoPAFS instrument among Chinese Mandarin-speaking parents. CoPAFS is a 27-item survey designed to assess co-parenting across married and unmarried family structures originally developed in English. Data were collected from 729 Chinese-speaking and 348 English-speaking respondents. Factor analyses and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the overall model fit for the translated co-parenting measure was acceptable in Mandarin. However, the five CoPAFS subscales (trust, respect, communication, acrimony, and value) differed across comparison groups, with communication notable for its lack of endorsement among Chinese couples. Implications of measuring co-parenting within Chinese families are offered.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".