Parent psychological distress and beliefs about nurturing care: Associations with parent investments and early child development in Ethiopia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 34.1 months; 48.5% girls) and examine how parental distress and beliefs predict investments in learning at home and how these, in turn, predict children's development across multiple domains. We examine these associations separately for infants/toddlers (0-35 months) and preschool-aged children (36-72 months), for whom enrollment in preprimary school is also included as an additional form of parent investment. Results showed different patterns of associations between the two age groups. Specifically, for infants and toddlers, parental distress and beliefs did not predict parent investments or child outcomes, but both access to learning materials and cognitive stimulation at home positively predicted child development in every domain. For preschool-aged children, parental beliefs positively predicted hours in preschool, and parental distress negatively predicted the availability of learning materials and cognitive stimulation at home; these three forms of parent investments each positively predicted children's outcomes across all developmental domains. Collectively, these findings deepen our understanding of parent factors that shape children's formal and informal learning experiences and point to several important areas for future research to more fully understand early childhood development in low-resource contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".