Parental education and attitudes towards institutionalization of children in West Java, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In low- and middle-income countries, orphanages are often perceived as a means to secure education for children. Consequently, many parents send their children to orphanages, unaware of the potential risks involved. This study aims to explore caregivers' attitudes toward child institutionalization in the context of placing children in orphanages. Data were collected from 736 caregivers of children aged 0–7 years in Cianjur, West Java, Indonesia, in 2017. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression were used to assess caregivers’ attitudes and the likelihood of agreeing or disagreeing with six statements about child institutionalization. The study found that most caregivers agreed that poor children are better off being raised in orphanages, but parents remain responsible for the child even after placement. Logistic regression showed that caregivers with higher levels of formal education were less likely to agree with placing children in orphanages compared to caregivers with lower levels of formal education. This study highlights the importance of higher formal education in reducing caregiver support for institutionalization. • Many caregivers believe orphanages provide poor children with better access to education. • Caregivers with higher formal education levels are less likely to agree with placing children in orphanages. • Most caregivers do not associate placing children in orphanages as a loss of parental responsibility. • Caregivers are often uninformed of the realities of children's lives in orphanages.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".