Co-parenting, parental competence and problem behaviours in children: examining differential parental roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the increase in child problem behaviours has become a significant public health concern. It is crucial to understand the complex dynamics between parental co-parenting, parenting competence, and child problem behaviours to develop effective interventions. This study explored the intricate relationship between parental co-parenting, parenting sense of competence, and child problem behaviours in a sample of 407 parent-child pairs from Shanghai, China. Findings indicated that neither maternal nor paternal perceived co-parenting significantly predicts child problem behaviours directly. However, maternal parenting sense of competence emerges as a significant mediator between maternal perceived co-parenting (both supportive and non-supportive) and child problem behaviours. This highlights the pivotal role of mothers as primary caregivers in shaping parenting dynamics and child outcomes. Conversely, paternal parenting sense of competence does not mediate the relationship between paternal perceived co-parenting and child behaviours, suggesting a nuanced dynamic within paternal care-giving roles. The study underscores theoretical contributions, validating the theory of inconsistent compensation effect and emphasizing the primary caregiver effect within the Chinese family context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".